Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-DanchevaPhoto of Anushka N. Rahman

Manufacturers and distributors of household cleaners and similar chemically-based consumer products sold in Canada should be aware of an uptick in recalls by Health Canada for violations of the labeling requirements of the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001 (CCCR) under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA). The CCCR establishes detailed product classification criteria and labeling and packaging requirements for potential hazards in certain consumer products.

In just the last three months, Health Canada has issued nine recalls for products from various countries, with goods ranging from stain removers to tire coatings. These include recalls of PURE RESIN Brand Epoxy Resin Kits (China), Quicksilver Corrosion Guard and Quicksilver Light Gray Primer Spray Paint (USA), “Salt Eraser” salt stain remover (also cited for lack of child-resistant packaging) (Canada), Flikrfire personal Firepots (USA), and Bubble Angel Kettle Cleaner (Japan). According to Health Canada’s website, mislabeling constitutes a potential hazard since “the lack of appropriate labelling information could result in unintentional exposure to the products and lead to serious illness or injury.”

It is worth noting that labeling requirements under the CCCR differ from labeling requirements under the U.S. Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), so compliance with one set of requirements does not guarantee compliance with the other. While a compliant FHSA-labeled product should not result in mishandling the product or unintentional exposure to hazardous substances, these recent actions underscore the importance of understanding the differing regulatory requirements and taking steps to confirm that products introduced into Canada are labeled in accordance with the CCCR.

Photo of Peter Craddock

So much for tackling consent fatigue. The short version: If unchanged, the new EDPB guidelines on what is known as the “cookie” rule would extend that rule to cover nearly every communication over the Internet and any use of software on a computer. Your business is probably more impacted than you might think, and it is important for you to take part in the public consultation that runs until 28 December 2023 – so reach out rapidly.

The ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) is a misunderstood piece of legislation. While the public often links cookie banners to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of 2016, they actually stem from Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive. This provision, as strengthened in 2009, requires EU Member States to ensure that “the storing of information, or the gaining of access to information already stored, in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user” is prohibited unless (i) the subscriber or user has consented to this storage/access, (ii) that storage/access is “for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network” or (iii) that storage/access is “strictly necessary” for the provision of an “information society service [read: digital service] explicitly requested by the subscriber or user”.

In practice, therefore: no cookies or similar files can be placed on your device (for instance a computer or a smartphone) or accessed on your device if none of those three conditions is met (consent – which must meet the GDPR consent requirements; “strictly necessary” for a digital service; or for the sole purpose of transmission of an electronic communication).

On 16 November 2023, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) published its new Guidelines 2/2023 on Technical Scope of Art. 5(3) of ePrivacy Directive. The legal value of those guidelines is yet to be determined, given that the EDPB does not comprise all national authorities with the power to enforce the local implementation of that ePrivacy provision), and there are arguments to say that the EDPB did not have the authority to adopt “guidelines” on the topic (see a more detailed analysis here).

In these guidelines, the EDPB sets out a new interpretation of that provision: Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive should apply not only to cookies and files stored on a device and (actively) accessed from a device but also to (i) any information that the device transmits automatically (such as the URL of a webpage being accessed or the public IP address of the Internet connection, sent automatically to make a connection possible with a website or application) as well as (ii) temporary information generated on that device and information stored ephemerally (i.e., not held on persistent storage, such as a hard drive). The consequence? Every bit of information that relates to a device, even indirectly (such as an IP address, tracking pixels, URLs visited, Internet-of-Things device reporting), is covered, regulating the simplest digital activities such as loading contextual advertising and running a script in Javascript to make a website seem more dynamic.

Is automatic receipt of information “access” to the terminal equipment sending that information?

The position in relation to Germany in particular reveals a fundamentally new approach regarding what constitutes “access”.

In 2021, the German regulators collectively stated the following regarding the notion of “access” to a terminal equipment:

“An access requires a targeted transmission of browser information that is not initiated by the end user. If only information, such as browser or header information, is processed that is transmitted inevitably or due to (browser) settings of the end device when calling up a telemedia service, this is not to be considered “access to information already stored in the end device.”” [machine translation]

One German regulator confirmed this again explicitly in 2022.

By way of comparison, in the new guidelines, the EDPB states that in its view, “access” can be both (i) a situation where “the accessing entity […] proactively send[s] specific instructions to the terminal equipment in order to receive back the targeted information” and (ii) a case where an “entity may have used protocols that imply the proactive sending of information by the terminal equipment which may be processed by the receiving entity”. This second point may seem innocent and harmless, but it is leaned upon heavily by the EDPB to conclude that the fact that information is sent automatically following a communication protocol (e.g., an IP address) shows that there is an “entity instructing the sending of information”.

Beyond being linguistically problematic (“access” has an active connotation), this position makes any communication over the Internet “access” by the recipient, because Internet communications all require the transmission of certain information as defined by the relevant communication protocol.

To take an illustration perhaps not anticipated by the EDPB, e-mails could, following that logic, be passive “access”. After all, the recipient is “accessing” the e-mail content and the sender’s e-mail headers, such as the name that he or she configured for that e-mail account, i.e., information that was stored even temporarily on the sender’s device during the drafting and sending of the e-mail and that is sent automatically because the developers of the relevant communication protocol (IMAP and POP being the main ones for sending e-mails) decided that this information would be sent for all e-mails. As a result, any further use of the content of e-mails would be subject to Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive, following the EDPB’s approach – which in turn means that the recipient would have to prove (i) the consent of the sender to the use of the e-mail or (ii) the fact that such use of that e-mail is strictly necessary to the provision of a digital service that the sender explicitly requested. In practice, e-mail retention would overnight become illegal.

Why did the EDPB create this idea that the designer of a protocol is giving “instructions” to a device that mean that information will be “accessed” on the device? Likely because this was the only way for the EDPB to extend the scope of Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive to cover IP addresses, which are frequently used in support of delivery of content and ads (whether personalised or not) and in support of analytics (for instance, monitoring usage of a website or app).

However, the end should not justify the means, and the means here create a significant broadening of the ePrivacy Directive’s scope in a manner that does not appear to have ever been the intent of the EU legislator.

Is the transmission of information stored ephemerally really a form of access of information “already stored”?

The EDPB’s position regarding information generated on a device and not stored in persistent storage such as a hard drive likely stems from the fact that the ePrivacy Regulation (if ever adopted) would foresee that it applies not only to the use of the storage capabilities of terminal equipment but also to the use of the processing capabilities of terminal equipment.

The technologies that the EDPB lists as being covered by Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive (RAM and CPU cache) are inherently at best ephemeral “storage”: information is temporarily “stored” in them purely because that information is actively being used by the device (RAM) or because it is frequently used and the computer decides on its own to store that information in a place that is even more rapidly available (CPU cache).

The EDPB’s approach is problematic, first because the actual legal text talks about “the gaining of access to information already stored” (which introduces a notion of time – an instantaneous calculation could hardly be seen as “already” stored) and only uses examples of actual storage (such as cookies), without providing any illustrations that are more ephemeral.

Second, because – due to the central role of RAM and CPU cache in the way computers work – it means that no interaction with a computer is permitted unless you can show that there is (i) consent, (ii) strict necessity for provision of an explicitly requested digital service or (iii) necessity for the sole purpose of transmission of a communication. While many such interactions will fall within the “service” scenario, most companies will probably want to prepare an “information processing notice” (along the same lines as a cookie notice) for their software and websites, just to be on the safe side, in case a complainant or regulator challenges the applicability of the “service” exception. In other words, what may have been part of an initiative to combat consent fatigue may end up worsening it dramatically.

Why then should your company take part in the public consultation?

Irrespective of your sector and activities, if you have any digital activities, they will be impacted by these guidelines. Even if you only have one website, there may be elements on that website that could be challenged (e.g., an ad banner, even if it is contextual advertising or a “sign up for a newsletter” popup that appears to an individual who has not yet seen it on his or her device). If you use IP addresses for anti-fraud checks, if you use URL parameters to track how many people read your newsletters, this will be covered. Even the developer of the “phone” core application on your smartphone needs to pay attention, as the phone number of the recipient of a call could be considered to be “stored” on the sender’s phone (temporarily) and “accessed” by the recipient as a result of the communication protocol – so any further use by the recipient beyond the communication (e.g., lists of past calls) could be regulated under Article 5(3) ePrivacy Directive following the EDPB’s approach.

That broadening of the scope can severely impact your company’s ability to deploy or use digital services and tools if you cannot rely on (i) GDPR-compliant consent or (ii) a strict necessity to provide a digital service explicitly requested by the user.

This may seem to be a significant overreach and twisting of the words of the ePrivacy Directive – and to limit the risk for your business, it may be worthwhile responding to the public consultation (which runs until 28 December 2023).

Past consultations have shown that the EDPB usually sticks to its position. One notable exception was its adoption of a slightly more pragmatic approach in (only some parts of) its recommendations on “supplementary measures” for data transfers, but more often the changes appear to lead to a slight hardening of the EDPB’s position (see e.g., the recent administrative fines guidelines, which were barely modified and in fact were modified to propose even higher fines).

It therefore appears unlikely that the EDPB will suddenly restrict the scope of these guidelines or to clarify why the legislator might have intended for both ephemeral processing and passive “access” to be covered, but it may see fit to at least clarify its legal reasoning – which may come in handy in case of (likely) litigation in relation to the enforcement of the positions it sets out.

From that perspective, it may remain useful to submit comments on the guidelines.

Not yet convinced, or would you like a more in-depth analysis of the new guidelines? Read our in-depth review of the content of the guidelines, containing additional points of criticism that may be useful to your assessment of the impact of the guidelines on your business.

And would you like to send comments to the EDPB, but are you concerned about the fact that your name as responder will be made public? Get in touch – we have helped clients submit responses confidentially, by serving as the intermediary and signatory.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-Dancheva

On November 13, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) sent warning letters to the American Beverage Association (AmeriBev), The Canadian Sugar Institute, and a dozen dietitians and influencers promoting the safety of artificial sweetener aspartame or the consumption of sugar-containing products on TikTok and Instagram. The letters allege that the dieticians and influencers did not adequately disclose that the associations paid for the endorsements. The FTC’s Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (the Endorsement Guides) state that “paid endorsements should clearly and conspicuously disclose any unexpected material connections to ensure that consumers have the information they need to make informed purchasing decisions.” The warning letters put the trade groups and influencers on notice that further violations of the Endorsement Guides could result in fines of up to $50,120 per violation. Read more here.

Photo of Sheila Millar

Children’s and teen’s online privacy and safety – particularly their mental health – continues to be an area of intense scrutiny for lawmakers, regulators, and enforcers. Last May, the Biden administration announced the creation of a new task force focused on the safety, privacy, and wellbeing of children online, linked to an Advisory on Social Media and Youth Mental Health issued by the U.S. Surgeon General the same day. The task force is slated to produce voluntary guidance, policy recommendations, and a toolkit on safety, health, and privacy-by-design for industry developing digital products and services by Spring 2024. As part of this initiative, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the Department of Commerce (DOC) published a Request for Comments (RFC) in the Federal Register on October 10, 2023. The RFC seeks public feedback on the best ways to protect the mental health, safety, and privacy of minors online, now characterized as an urgent public health issue by the Surgeon General.

But there’s more. Proving that both red states and blue states can agree on some issues, a bipartisan group of state attorneys general (AGs) filed a federal lawsuit against social media giant Meta Platforms Inc (Meta) and other Meta entities on October 24, 2023, and nine AGs filed complaints in their states. The complaints allege violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and other legal violations related to allegedly harmful design features and practices by the Meta entities that, the complaints allege, contribute to body dysmorphia, sadness, suicidal thoughts, and other mental health harms. Read the full article here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Anushka N. Rahman

Joining a growing number of state and federal agencies, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) is seeking information on uses of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in consumer products. In addition to work it began last year with ASTM International on consumer product standards related to PFAS, the CPSC released a white paper prepared by an external contractor back on July 14, 2023, and is now seeking comments on a Request for Information (RFI) on PFAS in Consumer Products. Through its RFI, the Commission is soliciting feedback on, among other things, how to define PFAS, which the report acknowledges has “no single, universally accepted definition … or authoritative list of substances.” To read the full article, click here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Katie BondPhoto of Samuel Butler

California Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed into law AB1305, another in the line of bills that reflect California’s efforts to tackle climate change. AB1305 amends California’s Health and Safety Code to require certain disclosures from companies that affect claims such as carbon neutral, net zero, and the like, in reliance on voluntary carbon offsets (VCOs). The law applies to business entities selling VCOs in California; those operating in California and relying on California VCOs for any claims, regardless of where the claims are made; and those operating in California and making VCO claims within the state. For more details on the key disclosure requirements and potential questions arising from the new law, click here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Katie BondPhoto of Samuel Butler

“Service fees.” “Convenience fees.” Whatever a business calls them, consumers don’t like them, and neither does President Biden. The President has repeatedly pledged to end the practice of imposing what he calls “junk fees.” The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has now issued a new proposed rule (proposed Rule) requiring more transparency in imposition of these fees. Click here for the full article.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Liam Fulling

On September 18, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction to NetChoice, a tech umbrella group, against California Attorney General Rob Bonta from enforcing the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADCA). The court found the CAADCA, which was slated to take effect on July 1, 2024, was likely to violate the First Amendment, marking a major win for online businesses in at least this initial stage of the litigation. To read more about this important development, click here.

Photo of Katie BondPhoto of Samuel Butler

The FTC recently announced an enforcement action involving generative artificial intelligence (AI). The most interesting part: it hardly involves AI at all. There is no alleged misuse of AI, and not even allegations of AI actually being used. Rather, the case is a business opportunities case. 

The FTC alleges that three individuals and several inter-related businesses claimed to be able to help consumers launch lucrative e-commerce stores on and Walmart. But, according to the FTC, promises of significant earnings proved untrue for most consumers who had paid $10,000 to $125,000 for the services. The FTC alleges that these practices constituted deceptive advertising and violated the Business Opportunity Rule, among other laws and regulations. The FTC has already obtained a temporary restraining order in the case, and is now seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, as well as civil penalties. So what does this all have to do with AI?

The advertising for the services allegedly included claims like, “We’ve recently discovered how to use AI tools for our 1 on 1 Amazon coaching program, helping students achieve over $10,000/month in sales,” and “That is how you make $6000 net profit and that is how you find a product in 5 minutes using AI, Grabbly, Priceblink.” 

The mere mention of AI turned a fairly ordinary business opportunity case into an AI case. “AI” made it into the headline of the FTC press release and at least some mainstream media has reported on the case – which is normally uncommon except for high-profile FTC enforcement actions, like those against Meta or Amazon. 

The lesson here: all eyes (including regulators’ eyes) are on AI. Any novel use of AI in business must be carefully vetted, as does any mention of AI in advertising.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Tracy Marshall

How should companies respond to and report data security breaches nationally? What cybersecurity practices and procedures reflect current best practices? Two federal agency actions provide new rules and guidance and show that the cybersecurity landscape is changing. First, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted new rules earlier this month that will (among other things) require publicly-traded companies to disclose “material” cybersecurity incidents on SEC Form 8-K within four business days and make certain cybersecurity disclosures. Second, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) recently released its latest Cybersecurity Framework, which now includes a section on corporate governance. Cybersecurity issues are directly related to environmental and social governance (ESG) reporting issues and are increasingly important to businesses from a compliance and governance standpoint. The new SEC requirements have garnered industry criticism, and industry organizations are seeking a delay in the September 5, 2023, effective date. Read the full article here.