Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Hot Button Enforcement Issues In the New Canadian Consumer Privacy Protection Act
Part One of this series discussed the history of Canada's recently introduced Consumer Privacy Protection Act and reviewed the similarities with GDPR, such as data portability, the right not be forgotten, codes of practice, and a safe harbor provision. Part Two of this analyzed the new compliance requirement of valid consent. Part Three continued the analysis of new compliance requirements, including the content of organizational privacy policies and anonymization of personal information policies, and business transaction policies contained in the Act. Part Four concludes the series with a look at hot button enforcement issues in the Act.
Hot Button Issues for Enforcement
As previously noted, one of the most significant aspects of the Act is the significant range of enforcement remedies. Given that the emphasis in this article is on compliance for privacy officers, those have not been reviewed in detail. However: a) the penalties that can be imposed by the Data Tribunal; and b) the slightly extended list of offences for which fines may be applied, helpfully set out a guide as to which features of an organization's privacy compliance program will likely be the focus of enforcement, and should therefore be revisited by privacy officers with a view to strengthening those aspects of their privacy programs.
Hot Button Issues #1: As Indicated by Tribunal Penalties
Maximum Fines
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.