IAPP Updated CIPP-US Exam Questions and Answers by thalia

The CCPA provides consumers with a private right of action to pursue statutory damages following data security breaches that impact certain sensitive categories of personal information and are caused by a business’s failure to institute reasonable and appropriate security. The CCPA defines personal information for this purpose as an individual’s name in combination with any of the following: social security number, driver’s license number, account number, credit or debit card number, medical information, or health insurance information. The CCPA allows consumers to seek damages between $100 and $750 per consumer per incident, or actual damages, whichever is greater. The CCPA also requires consumers to provide the business with 30 days’ written notice and an opportunity to cure the violation before initiating an action. Additionally, the CCPA requires consumers to notify the Attorney General within 30 days of filing the action and obtain the Attorney General’s approval or nonobjection before proceeding with the action. Therefore, John can sue the corporation for the data breach to recover monetary damages suffered as a result of the data breach, and in some circumstances seek statutory damages irrespective of whether he suffered any financial harm, as long as he meets the requirements of the CCPA. References:

CCPA Provides Private Right of Action for Data Security Breaches

CCPA Private Right of Action – Data Breach Security Requirement

CCPA Fines & Penalties for Data Protection Violations | MatrixPoint

 The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) within the HHS is the primary enforcer of the HIPAA Privacy Rule, which establishes national standards for the protection of individually identifiable health information by covered entities and business associates. The OCR investigates complaints, conducts compliance reviews, and provides technical assistance and guidance to ensure compliance with the Privacy Rule. The OCR can also impose civil monetary penalties for violations of the Privacy Rule, ranging from $100 to $50,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $1.5 million per year for the same violation. References: HIPAA Enforcement, IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 3, Section 3.1.1

The UK company can ensure an adequate level of data protection for the restricted data transfer to the US parent company by using the EU Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs), which are contractual terms that provide safeguards for personal data transferred from the UK to third countries. The UK GDPR recognizes the validity of the EU SCCs adopted before the end of the Brexit transition period, and allows the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to issue new SCCs in the future. The other options are not correct because:

A. Signing up to an approved code of conduct under the UK GDPR is not sufficient to ensure an adequate level of data protection for restricted transfers, as it is not a transfer mechanism on its own. The UK company would still need to use another appropriate safeguard, such as SCCs or Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs), to transfer personal data to the US parent company.

C. Submitting a new application for the UK BCRs is not necessary, as the UK GDPR recognizes the existing authorized EU BCRs as valid for restricted transfers from the UK. The UK company can continue to rely on its EU BCRs, as long as they are updated to reflect the UK GDPR requirements and the role of the ICO as the competent supervisory authority.

D. Allowing each employee the option to opt-out to the restricted transfer is not a valid transfer mechanism under the UK GDPR, as it does not provide adequate safeguards for the personal data of the employees. The UK company would need to obtain the explicit consent of each employee for the restricted transfer, which must be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous. References:

UK GDPR, Chapter V, Article 46

UK GDPR, Chapter V, Article 47

UK GDPR, Chapter V, Article 49

ICO guidance on international transfers

IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 10, Section 10.3.2

According to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), a policy of “no consumer choice” or “no option” means that an educational agency or institution may disclose personally identifiable information (PII) from education records without the prior written consent of the parent or eligible student, subject to certain conditions and exceptions1. One of the exceptions is when the disclosure is to comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena, or to respond to an ex parte order from the Attorney General of the United States or his designee in connection with the investigation or prosecution of terrorism crimes12. In such cases, the educational agency or institution must make a reasonable effort to notify the parent or eligible student of the order or subpoena in advance of compliance, unless the order or subpoena specifies not to do so12. Therefore, when a customer’s financial information, which may be part of the education records, is requested by the government under a valid legal authority, the customer does not have the option to prevent the disclosure and the educational agency or institution does not need to obtain the customer’s consent. References: 1: FERPA, 34 CFR Part 99, Subpart D, 2. 2: The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Guidance for Parents, Student Privacy Policy Office, U.S. Department of Education, 1.