Full Access IAPP CIPP-US Tutorials

The marketer could be prosecuted for violating the Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP) laws, which are enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general. UDAP laws prohibit businesses from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices that harm consumers, such as false advertising, misleading claims, or hidden fees. In this scenario, the marketer could be accused of deceiving children into providing personal information and preferences under the guise of a survey and a contest, without obtaining verifiable parental consent or disclosing how the information will be used or shared. This could also violate the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which is a federal law that regulates the online collection and use of personal information from children under 13 years of age. References:

• [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 5: Enforcement of Privacy and Security, pp. 177-178.
• IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Section II: Limits on Private-sector Collection and Use of Data, Subsection A: Government and Court Access to Private-sector Information, Topic 2: Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices.
• IAPP CIPP/US Practice Questions, Question 27.

Nevada’s privacy law, Senate Bill 260 (SB 260), is an amendment to the existing Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 603A that was enacted in June 2021 and will take effect on October 1, 2021. SB 260 expands the scope and definition of “covered information” under NRS 603A to include any information that identifies, relates to, describes, or is capable of being associated with a consumer, such as name, address, email, phone number, social security number, biometric data, geolocation data, and online identifiers. SB 260also grants Nevada consumers the right to opt out of the sale of their covered information by an operator of a website or online service that collects and maintains such information.

Under SB 260, an operator is defined as a person who owns or operates a website or online service for commercial purposes, collects and maintains covered information from consumers who reside in Nevada and use or visit the website or online service, and purposefully directs its activities toward Nevada. A sale is defined as the exchange of covered information for monetary consideration by the operator to a person for the person to license or sell the covered information to additional persons. However, there are some exceptions to the definition of a sale, such as:

• If the consumer has consented to the sale after being provided with clear and conspicuous notice of the sale and the opportunity to opt out.
• If the sale is to a person who processes the covered information on behalf of the operator.
• If the sale is to a person with whom the consumer has a direct relationship for the purposes of providing a product or service requested by the consumer.
• If the sale is to a person for purposes that are consistent with the reasonable expectations of the consumer considering the context in which the consumer provided the covered information to the operator.
• If the sale is to a person who is an affiliate of the operator.
• If the sale is to a person as an asset that is part of a merger, acquisition, bankruptcy, or other transaction in which the person assumes control of all or part of the operator’s assets.

To comply with SB 260, an operator that sells covered information must provide a designated request address through which a consumer may submit a verified request to opt out of the sale. The designated request address may be an email address, a toll-free telephone number, or an Internet website. The operator must respond to the verified request within 60 days, and may extend the response period for an additional 30 days if reasonably necessary. The operator must also provide a notice to the consumer that identifies the categories of covered information that the operator collects and the categories of third parties to whom the operator may disclose the covered information.

Therefore, the best privacy compliance step for SuperMart to comply with SB 260 is to provide a mechanism for consumers to opt out of sales, as this is the core requirement of the law. Option A is the correct answer.

Option B is incorrect, as SB 260 does not grant consumers the right to access or delete their covered information, unlike other state privacy laws such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) or the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA).

Option C is incorrect, as SB 260 does not require operators to provide a notice of financial incentive for any loyalty programs offered to their customers, unlike the CCPA.

Option D is incorrect, as SB 260 does not impose service provider restrictions on the vendors of the operators, unlike the CCPA or the VCDPA.

References:

• [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 10: State Data Security Laws, pp. 229-230.
• CIPP/US Practice Questions (Sample Questions), Question 33.

 According to the web search results from my predefined tool, Vermont became the first state to pass a law specifically regulating the practices of data brokers in 2018. The law defines a data broker as “a business, or unit or units of a business, separately or together, that knowingly collects and sells or licenses to third parties the brokered personal information of a consumer with whom the business does not have a direct relationship.” The law requires data brokers to register with the Secretary of State, pay a registration fee, provide information about their data collection and opt-out practices, and implement security measures to protect the personal information they collect and sell. The law also imposes additional obligations on data brokers that possess the personal information of minors. The law aims to increase the transparency and accountability of the data broker industry and to protect the privacy rights of consumers12. References:

• Registered Data Brokers in the United States: 2021 | Privacy Rights …
• Am I A Data Broker?: A Quick Primer on State Laws Regulating a … - Taft

The state UDAP statute, which stands for Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices, is a law that protects consumers from unfair or deceptive business practices. In this case, the employer’s failure to protect the employee’s personal information from a phishing attack could be considered an unfair or deceptive act or practice that harmed the employee. The employee could sue the employer under the state UDAP statute for damages, injunctive relief, or other remedies. The other options are not relevant to this scenario, as they deal with different aspects of data protection, such as confidentiality, access, or destruction of personal information. References:

• [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 8, Section 8.3.1, page 227
• IAPP CIPP/US Practice Questions, Question 153, page 13