Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
By Craig R. Heeren, Mollie D. Sitkowski and Angela Lam
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has proposed a rule that would regulate certain transactions involving bulk sensitive personal data. Public comments are due in 30 days from the notice date.
The rule would implement a complex regulatory framework, with civil and criminal enforcement, that is similar to sanctions and export licensing regimes. It also implicates federal cybersecurity requirements, government contracting and CFIUS actions.
Businesses that handle significant amounts of sensitive personal data, as well as those that handle any amount of certain U.S. government data, should ensure they are prepared for these significant new potential regulations.
On Oct. 21, 2024, the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ NSD) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would establish a comprehensive regulatory framework to prevent and restrict the transfer of “bulk sensitive personal data” to countries and entities that are deemed a risk to U.S. national security. As explained in a prior insight regarding an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on this issue, the DOJ is issuing this rule after the Biden administration directed federal agencies to issue regulations to respond to the concern of misuse of sensitive data that could impact national security. The NPRM addresses comments provided through the advance notice process, details the proposed rule, and provides for an additional 30-day comment period. As discussed below, the proposed rule is a significant effort to regulate data through civil and criminal enforcement mechanisms akin to sanctions and export control regulations. Businesses potentially subject to its reach should carefully consider how to handle the rule’s implementation.
The DOJ NSD rule would prohibit or restrict the transfer of “bulk sensitive personal data” or “government-related data” to certain “countries of concern” and “covered persons,” unless the transaction meets certain cybersecurity requirements or a license permitting the transaction is provided by the Department of Justice. Certain transactions are exempt from this rule. Some of the key provisions include the following:
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.
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.