IAPP CIPP-E Dumps Questions Answers

SCENARIO

Louis, a long-time customer of Bedrock Insurance, was involved in a minor car accident a few months ago. Although no one was hurt, Louis has been plagued by texts and calls from a company called Accidentable offering to help him recover compensation for personal injury. Louis has heard about insurance companies selling customers’ data to third parties, and he’s convinced that Accidentable must have gotten his information from Bedrock Insurance.

Louis has also been receiving an increased amount of marketing information from Bedrock, trying to sell him their full range of their insurance policies.

Perturbed by this, Louis has started looking at price comparison sites on the internet and has been shocked to find that other insurers offer much cheaper rates than Bedrock, even though he has been a loyal customer for many years. When his Bedrock policy comes up for renewal, he decides to switch to Zantrum Insurance.

In order to activate his new insurance policy, Louis needs to supply Zantrum with information about his No Claims bonus, his vehicle and his driving history. After researching his rights under the GDPR, he writes to ask Bedrock to transfer his information directly to Zantrum. He also takes this opportunity to ask Bedrock to stop using his personal data for marketing purposes.

Bedrock supplies Louis with a PDF and XML (Extensible Markup Language) versions of his No Claims Certificate, but tells Louis it cannot transfer his data directly to Zantrum as this is not technically feasible. Bedrock also explains that Louis’s contract included a provision whereby Louis agreed that his data could be used for marketing purposes; according to Bedrock, it is too late for Louis to change his mind about this. It angers Louis when he recalls the wording of the contract, which was filled with legal jargon and very confusing.

In the meantime, Louis is still receiving unwanted calls from Accidentable Insurance. He writes to Accidentable to ask for the name of the organization that supplied his details to them. He warns Accidentable that he plans to complain to the data protection authority, because he thinks their company has been using his data unlawfully. His letter states that he does not want his data being used by them in any way.

Accidentable’s response letter confirms Louis’s suspicions. Accidentable is Bedrock Insurance’s wholly owned subsidiary, and they received information about Louis’s accident from Bedrock shortly after Louis submitted his accident claim. Accidentable assures Louis that there has been no breach of the GDPR, as Louis’s contract included, a provision in which he agreed to share his information with Bedrock’s affiliates for business purposes.

Louis is disgusted by the way in which he has been treated by Bedrock, and writes to them insisting that all his information be erased from their computer system.

Based on the GDPR’s position on the use of personal data for direct marketing purposes, which of the following is true about Louis’s rights as a data subject?

What is a reason the European Court of Justice declared the Data Retention Directive invalid in 2014?

SCENARIO

Please use the following to answer the next question:

Joe is the new privacy manager for Who-R-U, a Canadian business that provides DNA analysis. The company is headquartered in Montreal, and all of its employees are located there. The company offers its services to Canadians only: Its website is in English and French, it accepts only Canadian currency, and it blocks internet traffic from outside of Canada (although this solution doesn’t prevent all non-Canadian traffic). It also declines to process orders that request the DNA report to be sent outside of Canada, and returns orders that show a non-Canadian return address.

Bob, the President of Who-R-U, thinks there is a lot of interest for the product in the EU, and the company is exploring a number of plans to expand its customer base.

The first plan, collegially called We-Track-U, will use an app to collect information about its current Canadian customer base. The expansion will allow its Canadian customers to use the app while traveling abroad. He

suggests that the company use this app to gather location information. If the plan shows promise, Bob proposes to use push notifications and text messages to encourage existing customers to pre-register for an EU version of the service. Bob calls this work plan, We-Text-U. Once the company has gathered enough pre- registrations, it will develop EU-specific content and services.

Another plan is called Customer for Life. The idea is to offer additional services through the company’s app, like storage and sharing of DNA information with other applications and medical providers. The company’s contract says that it can keep customer DNA indefinitely, and use it to offer new services and market them to customers. It also says that customers agree not to withdraw direct marketing consent. Paul, the marketing director, suggests that the company should fully exploit these provisions, and that it can work around customers’ attempts to withdraw consent because the contract invalidates them.

The final plan is to develop a brand presence in the EU. The company has already begun this process. It is in the process of purchasing the naming rights for a building in Germany, which would come with a few offices that Who-R-U executives can use while traveling internationally. The office doesn’t include any technology or infrastructure; rather, it’s simply a room with a desk and some chairs.

On a recent trip concerning the naming-rights deal, Bob’s laptop is stolen. The laptop held unencrypted DNA reports on 5,000 Who-R-U customers, all of whom are residents of Canada. The reports include customer name, birthdate, ethnicity, racial background, names of relatives, gender, and occasionally health information.

If Who-R-U adopts the We-Track-U pilot plan, why is it likely to be subject to the territorial scope of the GDPR?