Written by Noah Katz, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law

What is China’s new privacy law?

The Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL), which took effect in November 2021, is China’s first comprehensive data privacy law.^[1] The PIPL’s impact is immense given that China is home to almost one billion internet users.^[2] The new legislation provides a clear framework for regulating the use of personal data, but, if violated, businesses could face massive fines and may even be blacklisted by the Chinese government.^[3]

  Continue reading →

By Hannah G. Babinski, Class of 2024

It is a nightmarish scenario: a woman arrives home from work one evening, she unlocks the front door, kicks off her shoes, and walks into the living room of her still home—her refuge—only to find that someone has been inside her house without her knowledge. Continue reading →

KELSEY KENNY, Class of 2023

The evening of Thursday, November 4th, Maine Law’s Information Privacy Association, in collaboration with the Mortiz College of Law’s Data Privacy and Cyber Security Club, hosted an informal discussion panel to facilitate a dialogue between law students with an interest in information privacy and six professionals who have had success navigating the early stages of their evolving and dynamic careers in the field. Craig Carpenter, Caroline Hopland, Casey Waughn, Kenesa Ahmad, Lee Matheson, and Scott Bloomberg graciously contributed their time and insights to the forum. Continue reading →

BRANDON BERG, Class of 2021 (Submitted while a student at Maine Law) 

We are still feeling the ripple effects from the European Court of Justice’s Schrems II decision. Among other things, the decision ripped apart the E.U.-U.S. Privacy Shield with particular exception to the data subject’s inability to seek redress from a court or tribunal. With the goal of U.S. adequacy in mind, the question becomes, how do we move forward? With several privacy bills currently being debated in Congress, one important question must be addressed: do these bills address the judicial remedy concerns cited in Schrems II? Continue reading →