In Episode 5 of Season 5 Chris Allen and Hannah Land analyze Texas AG Ken Paxton’s recent $1.4B settlement with Google over alleged use of embedded tracking software and what it tells us about AGs’ privacy and data security concerns.
(00:02) Host Chris Allen introduces himself and State AG Group colleague Hannah Cornett Land, and presents the topic for discussion this week, the Texas AG’s $1.375 billion settlement with Google.
(01:54) Hannah dives into the details of the settlement which came after Texas filed a lawsuit in 2022 against Google claiming that it violated Texas’s privacy laws by allegedly tracking user location, incognito browser activity, and biometric data like voice prints and facial geometry without providing sufficient notice and consent.
(03:12) Hannah explains that the Texas AG is positioning himself as a key player in the privacy enforcement space, and has created of its own data privacy section in its Consumer Protection Division.
(04:27) Hannah notes that this lawsuit marks the first enforcement action under the TDPSA, Texas’s Data Privacy and Security Act.
(05:15) Chris chimes in on the proliferation of data collection and data sharing which impacts not just giant tech companies but also many others including auto companies.
(07:19) Chris discusses the broad powers that state AGs have under their UDAP authority and the fundamental issues states have become concerned about in terms of the information that is being kept about customers and how that information is safeguarded. State AGs are asking: How is that information being shared and what are consumers understanding about its collection and use.
(11:35) Hannah points out that states don’t necessarily need to have to have specific privacy laws in place because the UDAP laws are structured so broadly that any notice and consent issue could lead to enforcement action.
(13:39) Chris expands on the powers of the state AGs, the leading roles they are playing in the data privacy space and the creativity that AGs have under their existing statutes. He compares and contrasts the American and European approaches to things like free speech and privacy, which are fundamentally different.
(16:05) Chris asks what companies can take away from this.
(16:42) Hannah encourages companies to make sure they have their house in order and to know the nuance of the privacy laws and how they vary from state to state.
(17:21) Chris highlights the massive size of this settlement, but notes that AGs are generally less concerned about the money than they are about sending a message to businesses about their conduct and treatment of consumers..
(19:23) Chris reiterates that AGs like dialogue and companies can go to them, even if they are not under investigation and educate them about something they want to do, and understand from them what they think about it. He points out that AI and its impacts is a big issue for AGs and suggests engaging with AGs early on this and other topics to avoid the future possibility of a billion dollar judgment.
To listen to the full podcast, click here. To listen to a particular section, open the recording and use the time stamps provided above to navigate to the desired part.