CIPP-US Questions and Answers

 An intrusion upon seclusion tort occurs when someone intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person12. The intrusion does not need to involve a physical trespass, but can also be an electronic or optical intrusion, such as using a webcam to record a person who has a reasonable expectation of privacy2. The intrusion must also cause mental anguish or suffering to the plaintiff2.

In this case, option A would best support an employee claim for an intrusion upon seclusion tort, because the webcam is enabled to record video any time the computer is turned on, regardless of whether the employee is working or not, or whether the employee is in a private or public place. This would be an intentional and highly offensive intrusion into the employee’s seclusion or private affairs, and would likely cause the employee distress or anxiety.

Option B would not support an intrusion upon seclusion tort, because the creation and saving of a biometric template based on keystroke dynamics is not an intrusion into the employee’s seclusion or private affairs, but rather a data collection and processing activity that may implicate other privacy laws or principles, such as notice, consent, and security3.

Option C would not support an intrusion upon seclusion tort, because the software sending a notification to a supervisor when the employee’s mouse is dormant for more than five minutes is not an intrusion into the employee’s seclusion or private affairs, but rather a performance monitoring activity that may be justified by the employer’s legitimate business interests4.

Option D would not support an intrusion upon seclusion tort, because the webcam recording video of an employee using a company laptop to perform personal business while at a coffee shop during work hours is not an intrusion into the employee’s seclusion or private affairs, but rather a misuse of company property and time that may be subject to the employer’s policies and disciplinary actions5. Moreover, the employee may not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place like a coffee shop. References: 1: Intrusion on seclusion - Wikipedia 2: Elements of an Intrusion Claim | Digital Media Law Project 3: Biometrics - IAPP 4: Employee Monitoring - IAPP 5: Employee Privacy - IAPP : Privacy in Public Places - IAPP

Data classification systematically categorizes information based on sensitivity and importance to determine its level of confidentiality. This process helps apply appropriate security and compliance measures to ensure each category receives proper protection1. This process also helps to identify which personal data is subject to specific GDPR requirements, such as obtaining explicit consent from data subjects, or notifying data subjects in the event of a data breach2. By classifying data, Cheryl can also make more informed decisions about where to store the information on her computer system and the nature of controls that are required based on classification3. This way, she can protect her customers’ privacy while maintaining the highest level of service. References:

• Data Classification for GDPR Explained
• A guide to data classification: confidential data vs. sensitive data vs. public information
• Why Is Data Classification Important?

The Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010 amended the original Red Flags rule, which required certain financial institutions and creditors to develop and implement a written identity theft prevention program. The Clarification Act narrowed the definition of creditor to include only those who regularly and in the ordinary course of business advance funds to or on behalf of aperson, based on an obligation of the person to repay the funds or repayable from specific property pledged by or on behalf of the person12. This excludes creditors who advance funds for expenses incidental to a service provided by the creditor to that person3. References:

• CIPP/US Practice Questions (Sample Questions), Question 133, Answer B, Explanation B.
• IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.3, p. 108-109.
• Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010, Section 2, Subsection (b).

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.

The USA FREEDOM Act is a law that was enacted in 2015 to reform the surveillance practices of the U.S. government. The law was a response to the revelations by Edward Snowden about the mass collection of phone records and internet data by the National Security Agency (NSA) under the authority of Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. The USA FREEDOM Act ended the bulk collection of telephone data and internet metadata by the NSA, and instead required the government to obtain a specific order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to access such data from the telecommunication providers. The law also authorized the following practices:

• Emergency exceptions that allow the government to target roamers: The law allows the government to temporarily target a non-U.S. person who is using a phone number or identifier of a U.S. person, without a court order, if there is an emergency situation that involves a threat of death or serious bodily harm. The government must obtain a court order within seven days to continue the surveillance.
• An increase in the maximum penalty for material support to terrorism: The law increases the maximum prison term for providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization from 15 years to 20 years.
• An extension of the expiration for roving wiretaps: The law extends the sunset date for the roving wiretap provision of the USA PATRIOT Act, which allows the government to obtain a single order from the FISC to conduct surveillance on a target who switches devices or locations, without specifying the device or location. The law extends the expiration date from June 1, 2015 to December 15, 2019. References:
• USA FREEDOM Act
• USA FREEDOM Act Summary
• USA FREEDOM Act FAQs

 U.S. federal laws protect individuals from employment discrimination based on a number of protected characteristics, such as age, pregnancy, and genetic information. However, marital status is not one of them. There is no federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on marital status, although some states and localities have enacted such laws. The other statements are incorrect because:

• A. Age is a protected characteristic under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects people who are 40 or older from discrimination because of age1.
• B. Pregnancy is a protected characteristic under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make it illegal to discriminate against a woman because of pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth2.
• D. Genetic information is a protected characteristic under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which makes it illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of genetic information, such as family medical history, genetic tests, or participation in genetic research2. References: Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices, Employment discrimination law in the United States, Civil Rights Requirements- Federal Employment Discrimination Laws

Data classification is the process of categorizing data based on its sensitivity and importance to determine its level of confidentiality and protection. Data classification helps organizations apply appropriate security and compliance measures to ensure each category receives proper protection1. Data classification also helps organizations identify which data is subject to specific privacylaws and regulations, such as the GDPR, HIPAA, or CCPA, and how to handle data subject requests, data breaches, or legal discovery2. If an organization maintains data classified as high sensitivity, such as personal information, financial information, or health information, in the same system as data classified as low sensitivity, such as public information or internal information, it increases the risk of exposing the high sensitivity data in the event of a data breach. A data breach can result in legal consequences, reputational damage, and loss of trust from customers and stakeholders. Therefore, it is advisable to segregate data based on its classification and apply different levels of encryption, access control, and monitoring to each category3. This way, the organization can minimize the impact of a data breach and protect the privacy and security of its data assets. References:

• Why Is Data Classification Important?
• Data Classification for GDPR Explained
• Data classification and privacy considerations

According to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a covered entity is a health plan, a health care clearinghouse, or a health care provider that transmits any health information in electronic form in connection with a transaction covered by HIPAA. A covered entity must report a breach of unsecured protected health information (PHI) to the following parties:

• The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which is the federal agency responsible for enforcing HIPAA and issuing regulations and guidance on privacy and security issues. A covered entity must notify HHS of a breach affecting 500 or more individuals without unreasonable delay and in no case later than 60 days after discovery of the breach. A covered entity must also notify HHS of breaches affecting fewer than 500 individuals within 60 days of the end of the calendar year in which the breaches occurred.
• The affected individuals, who are the individuals whose PHI has been, or is reasonably believed to have been, accessed, acquired, used, or disclosed as a result of the breach. A covered entity must notify the affected individuals without unreasonable delay and in no case later than 60 days after discovery of the breach. The notification must be in writing by first-class mail or, if the individual agrees, by electronic mail. The notification must include a brief description of the breach, the types of information involved, the steps the individual should take to protect themselves, the steps the covered entity is taking to investigate and mitigate the breach, and the contact information of the covered entity.
• The local media, if the breach affects more than 500 residents of a state or jurisdiction. A covered entity must notify prominent media outlets serving the state or jurisdiction without unreasonable delay and in no case later than 60 days after discovery of the breach. The notification must include the same information as the notification to the affected individuals.

A covered entity does not have to report the breach to medical providers, unless they are also affected individuals or business associates of the covered entity. A business associate is a person or entity that performs certain functions or activities on behalf of, or provides certain services to, a covered entity that involve the use or disclosure of PHI. A covered entity must have a writtencontract or agreement with its business associates that requires them to protect the privacy and security of PHI and report any breaches to the covered entity.

References:

• IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Domain II: Limits on Private-sector Collection and Use of Data, Section C: Sector-specific Requirements for Health Information
• IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 2: Limits on Private-sector Collection and Use of Data, Section 2.3: Sector-specific Requirements for Health Information
• Practice Exam - International Association of Privacy Professionals

The Department of Commerce (DOC) plays a role in privacy policy by promoting the development and adoption of voluntary codes of conduct, standards, and best practices for the private sector, as well as facilitating cross-border data transfers through mechanisms such as the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and the APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules. However, the DOC does not have regulatory authority to enforce privacy laws or impose sanctions for privacy violations. The other agencies listed have some degree of regulatory authority over privacy issues within their respective domains. For example, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) supervises national banks and federal savings associations and enforces the GLBA privacy and security rules for these institutions. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates interstate and international communications and enforces the privacy and security rules for telecommunications carriers, broadband providers, and voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services. The Department of Transportation (DOT) oversees the transportation sector and enforces the privacy and security rules for airlines, travel agents, and other covered entities under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA). References:

• IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 1: Introduction to the U.S. Privacy Environment, Section 1.3: Federal Agencies with a Role in Privacy, p. 18-19
• IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Domain I: Introduction to the U.S. Privacy Environment, Objective I.B: Identify the major federal agencies with a role in privacy, Subobjective I.B.4: Identify the role of the Department of Commerce, p. 7
• IAPP CIPP/US Exam Blueprint, Domain I: Introduction to the U.S. Privacy Environment, Objective I.B: Identify the major federal agencies with a role in privacy, Subobjective I.B.4: Identify the role of the Department of Commerce, p. 3

HIPAA requires covered entities, such as hospitals, to enter into contracts with their business associates, such as billing companies, that access, use, or disclose protected health information (PHI). These contracts, known as business associate agreements (BAAs), must specify the permitted and required uses and disclosures of PHI by the business associate, as well as the safeguards, reporting, and termination procedures that the business associate must follow to protect the privacy and security of PHI. By having these contracts in place, the hospital can ensure that the billing company is complying with HIPAA and observing the minimum security standards required by law. References:

• HIPAA Rules for Medical Billing - Compliancy Group
• HIPAA Compliance for Billing Companies: Easy Guide - iFax

 The U.S. Constitution plays a limited role in the area of workplace privacy, because it mainly applies to the actions of the government, not private employers. The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures1. The Supreme Court has interpreted this right to include a reasonable expectation of privacy in certain situations, such as in one’s home, car, or personal belongings2. However, this right does not extend to private-sector employees, who are not protected by the Constitution from the actions of their employers, unless the employer is acting as an agent of the government3. Private-sector employees may have some privacy rights under state laws, common law, or contractual agreements, but these vary depending on the jurisdiction and the circumstances4.

Public-sector employees, on the other hand, are protected by the Constitution from unreasonable searches and seizures by their employers, who are considered part of the government. Public-sector employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their workplace, unless there is a legitimate work-related reason for the search or seizure, such as to ensure safety, security, or efficiency. Public-sector employers must also comply with the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit the government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying any person the equal protection of the laws. These clauses protect public-sector employees from arbitrary or discriminatory actions by their employers that affect their employment status or benefits.

Therefore, the U.S. Constitution plays a significant role in the area of workplace privacy for federal and state governments, but not for private-sector employment, because it only regulates the actions of the government, not private actors. References:

• 1: Cornell Law School, Fourth Amendment, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment
• 2: FindLaw, What Is a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy?, https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/what-is-a-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy.html
• 3: FindLaw, Workplace Privacy, https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/employment-law-and-human-resources/workplace-privacy.html
• 4: Nolo, Privacy Rights of Employees, https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/privacy-rights-employees-29849.html
• : OPM, Employee Relations, https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/employee-relations/reference-materials/employee-privacy/
• : Cornell Law School, Fifth Amendment, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment
• : FindLaw, Public Employees and the Constitution, https://www.findlaw.com/employment/employment-rights/public-employees-and-the-constitution.html

 Matt’s decision to report the marketer’s activities is based on his suspicion that the marketer violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which is a federal law that regulates the online collection, use, and disclosure of personal information from children under 13 years of age1. According to COPPA, operators of websites or online services that are directed to children or knowingly collect personal information from children must:

• Provide notice to parents about their information practices and obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children12.
• Give parents the choice of consenting to the operator’s collection and internal use of a child’s information, but prohibiting the operator from disclosing that information to third parties (unless disclosure is integral to the site or service, in which case, this must be made clear to parents)12.
• Provide parents access to their child’s personal information to review and/or have the information deleted and give parents the opportunity to prevent further use or online collection of a child’s personal information12.
• Maintain the confidentiality, security, and integrity of information they collect from children, including by taking reasonable steps to release such information only to parties capable of maintaining its confidentiality and security12.
• Retain personal information collected online from a child for only as long as is necessary to fulfill the purpose for which it was collected and delete the information using reasonable measures to protect against its unauthorized access or use12.
• Establish and maintain reasonable procedures to protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of personal information collected from children12.

In Matt’s case, he did not receive any notice from the marketer about the survey or the contest, nor did he give his consent for the collection or disclosure of his son’s personal information. He also did not have any access or control over his son’s information or the ability to prevent further use or collection. Moreover, he noticed that his son’s information seemed to have been shared with other marketers, as evidenced by the commercial emails in his son’s inbox. These actions indicate that the marketer did not comply with COPPA’s requirements and may have exposed his son’s information to unauthorized or inappropriate parties. Therefore, Matt decided to report the marketer’s activities to the proper authorities, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which enforces COPPA and can impose civil penalties for violations13. References: 1: Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act | Federal Trade Commission, 1. 2: 16 CFR Part 312 – Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule, 3. 3: Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act - Wikipedia, 2.

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.

Based on the incident, the FTC’s enforcement actions against the marketer would most likely include the violation of collecting information from a childunder the age of thirteen without obtaining verifiable parental consent, as required by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Rule. The COPPA Rule applies to operators of commercial websites and online services (including mobile apps) that collect, use, or disclose personal information from children under 13, and operators of general audience websites or online services that have actual knowledge that they are collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children under 13. The COPPA Rule also applies to websites or online services that are directed to children under 13 and that collect personal information from users of any age. The COPPA Rule defines personal information to include full name, address, phone number, email address, date of birth, and other identifiers that permit the physical or online contacting of a specific individual. The COPPA Rule requires operators to post a clear and comprehensive online privacy policy describing their information practices for personal information collected online from children; provide direct notice to parents and obtain verifiable parental consent, with limited exceptions, before collecting personal information online from children; give parents the choice of consenting to the operator’s collection and internal use of a child’s information, but prohibiting the operator from disclosing that information to third parties (unless disclosure is integral to the site or service, in which case, this must be made clear to parents); provide parents access to their child’s personal information to review and/or have the information deleted; give parents the opportunity to prevent further use or online collection of a child’s personal information; maintain the confidentiality, security, and integrity of information they collect from children, including by taking reasonable steps to release such information only to parties capable of maintaining its confidentiality and security; and retain personal information collected online from a child for only as long as is necessary to fulfill the purpose for which it was collected and delete the information using reasonable measures to protect against its unauthorized access or use. The FTC has the authority to seek civil penalties and injunctive relief for violations of the COPPA Rule. The FTC has brought numerous enforcement actions against operators for violating the COPPA Rule, resulting in millions of dollars in penalties and orders to delete illegally collected data. References:

• Children’s Privacy | Federal Trade Commission
• Kids’ Privacy (COPPA) | Federal Trade Commission
• FTC Is Escalating Scrutiny of Dark Patterns, Children’s Privacy
• FTC to Crack Down on Companies that Illegally Surveil Children Learning Online
• FTC Takes Action Against Company for Collecting Children’s Personal Information Without Parental Permission
• [IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide], Chapter 5, pages 165-168.

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.

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

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the primary federal agency that regulates advertising and marketing practices in the United States, including those targeting children via the Internet. The FTC enforces the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which requires operators of websites and online services directed to children under 13 to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children. The FTC also enforces the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce, such as making false or misleading claims in advertising. The FTC has issued guidelines and reports on various aspects of digital advertising to children, such as sponsored content, influencers, data collection, persuasive design, and behavioral marketing. The FTC also hosts workshops and events to examine the impact of digital advertising on children and their ability to distinguish ads from entertainment. References:

• FTC website
• Digital Advertising to Children
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 5: Marketing and Privacy, pp. 169-170

The law that is not involved in the regulation of employee background checks is B. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). The GLBA is a federal law that regulates the privacy and security of financial information collected, used, or shared by financial institutions, such as banks, insurance companies, or securities firms. The GLBA does not apply to employee background checks, unless the employer is a financial institution that obtains financial information from a consumer reporting agency for employment purposes. In that case, the employer must comply with the GLBA’s notice and opt-out requirements, as well as the FCRA’s requirements for using consumer reports. References:

• [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 4: Workplace Privacy, pp. 113-114.
• IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Section IV: Workplace Privacy, Subsection A: Employee Privacy Expectations, Topic 3: Background Checks.
• IAPP CIPP/US Practice Questions, Question 150.

• The Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) is a federal regulation that implements the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 1994. The TSR aims to protect consumers from deceptive or abusive telemarketing practices, such as unwanted calls, false or misleading claims, unauthorized billing, and privacy violations1.
• The TSR requires telemarketers and sellers to comply with the National Do Not Call Registry, which is a list of phone numbers of consumers who have indicated that they do not want to receive telemarketing calls2.
• The TSR also requires telemarketers and sellers to honor the do-not-call requests of individual consumers, regardless of whether their numbers are on the National Do Not Call Registry or not2.
• A do-not-call request is a statement made by a consumer, either orally or in writing, that they do not wish to receive any more calls from a specific telemarketer or seller2.
• The TSR requires an entity to share a do-not-call request across its organization when the operational structures of its divisions are not transparent to consumers3. This means that the entity must treat the do-not-call request as if it applies to all of its affiliates and subsidiaries that engage in telemarketing, unless the consumer would reasonably expect them to be separate and distinct entities based on their names, products, or services3.
• The TSR does not require an entity to share a do-not-call request across its organization in the following situations:

References: 1: Telemarketing Sales Rule 2: Q&A for Telemarketers & Sellers About DNC Provisions in TSR 3: Federal Register :: Telemarketing Sales Rule

Data flow diagrams are graphical representations of how data moves within an organization or between different entities. They can help identify the sources, destinations, and processing of personal data, as well as the legal basis, retention periods, and security measures for each data flow. Reviewing the available data flow diagrams can help the data privacy leader to quickly and accurately respond to the urgent request from the EU-based retail partner, as well as to assess the potential risks and compliance gaps in the data transfer process. Data flow diagrams are also a key component of data protection impact assessments (DPIAs), which are required by the GDPR for high-risk processing activities. References:

• IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Section II, A, 2
• [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 2, Section 2.3]
• [GDPR, Article 35]

The Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) was adopted in 1914 as part of the Progressive Era reforms that aimed to curb the power and influence of monopolies and trusts in the U.S. economy. The FTCA created the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as an independent agency to investigate and prevent unfairmethods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The FTCA also gave the FTC the authority to issue cease and desist orders, seek injunctions, and impose civil penalties for violations of the law. The FTCA was intended to complement and supplement the existing antitrust laws, such as the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, that prohibited restraints of trade, price-fixing, mergers, and other anticompetitive conduct.

The other options are not correct, because:

• The FTCA did not explicitly address privacy rights of U.S. citizens, although the FTC later used its authority under the FTCA to enforce against unfair or deceptive privacy practices, such as making false or misleading claims, failing to disclose material information, or violating consumers’ choices or expectations regarding their personal data.
• The FTCA did not specifically focus on consumer protection, although the FTC later expanded its scope to include consumer protection issues, such as advertising and marketing, credit and finance, privacy and security, and consumer education. The FTC also enforced other consumer protection laws, such as the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, and the CAN-SPAM Act.
• The FTCA did not authorize the FTC to negotiate consent decrees with companies violating personal privacy, although the FTC later used consent decrees as a common tool to settle privacy cases and impose remedial measures, such as audits, reports, and compliance programs. Consent decrees are agreements between the FTC and the parties involved in a case that resolve the FTC’s charges without admitting liability or wrongdoing.

References:

• FTC website, Federal Trade Commission Act
• Britannica website, Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA)
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 1: Introduction to the U.S. Privacy Environment, pp. 11-12
• IAPP website, Federal Trade Commission Act, Section 5 of

The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights is a set of principles proposed by the Obama administration in 2012 to protect the privacy of consumers online and offline. The principles are based on the Fair Information Practice Principles, which are widely accepted as the foundation of privacy protection. One of the principles is the right to reasonable limits on the personal data that a company retains, which means that companies should collect and keep only the personal data they need for legitimate purposes, and dispose of it securely when it is no longer needed. This principle would best reform the company’s privacy program in the scenario, as it would address the major concerns that Roberta identified in her report, such as the lack of rules and procedures for purging and destroying outdated data, and the excessive access to customer information by low-level employees. By implementing reasonable limits on the personal data that the company retains, the company would reduce the risk of data breaches, enhance customer trust, and comply with state breach notification laws. References:

• Fact Sheet: Plan to Protect Privacy in the Internet Age by Adopting a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights
• IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 1: Introduction to U.S. Privacy Law, Section 1.2: The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights

The HIPAA Security Rule requires covered entities and their business associates to implement three types of safeguards to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronic protected health information (ePHI): administrative, physical, and technical1. Security safeguards is not a separate category of safeguards, but rather a general term that encompasses all three types. Therefore, it is not a correct answer to the question.

• Administrative safeguards are the policies and procedures that govern the conduct of the workforce and the security measures put in place to protect ePHI. They include risk analysis and management, training, contingency planning, incident response, and evaluation12.
• Physical safeguards are the locks, doors, cameras, and other physical measures that prevent unauthorized access to ePHI. They include workstation and device security, locks and keys, and disposal of media12.
• Technical safeguards are the software and hardware tools that protect ePHI from unauthorized access, alteration, or destruction. They include access control, encryption, audit controls, integrity controls, and transmission security12.

In the scenario, HealthCo’s actions have potentially violated all three types of safeguards. For example:

• HealthCo did not perform due diligence on CloudHealth before entering the contract, and has not conducted audits of CloudHealth’s security measures. This could be a breach of the administrative safeguard of risk analysis and management12.
• HealthCo discovers that CloudHealth has not encrypted the PHI in accordance with the terms of its contract. This could be a breach of the technical safeguard of encryption12.
• HealthCo provides its investigative report of the breach and a copy of the PHI of the individuals affected to law enforcement. This could be a breach of the physical safeguard of disposal of media, if HealthCo did not ensure that the media was properly erased or destroyed after the transfer12.

References: 1: Summary of the HIPAA Security Rule, HHS.gov. 2: What is the HIPAA Security Rule? Safeguards … - Secureframe, Secureframe.com.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) is a federal law that regulates the privacy and security of consumer financial information collected, used, and disclosed by financial institutions, such as banks, credit unions, securities firms, insurance companies, and others12. Under the GLBA, financial institutions must comply with two main rules: the Privacy Rule and the Safeguards Rule12. The Privacy Rule requires financial institutions to provide notice to their customers about their information-sharing practices and to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children12. The Privacy Rule also gives customers the right to opt out of having their personal information shared with certain nonaffiliated third parties, unless an exception applies12. The Safeguards Rule requires financial institutions to develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive information security program that protects the confidentiality, security, and integrity of customer information12.

Therefore, banks and other financial institutions are required to offer an opt-out before transferring personal information (PI) to an unaffiliated third party for the latter’s own use, unless an exception applies, such as when the disclosure is necessary to complete a transaction requested or authorized by the customer, or when the disclosure is to a service provider or joint marketer that agrees to protect the information and use it only for the purposes for which it was disclosed12. This requirement is intended to give customers more controlover how their personal information is used and shared by financial institutions and to protect their privacy rights12.

References: 1: Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act | Federal Trade Commission, 1. 2: How To Comply with the Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act | Federal Trade Commission, 2.

According to the web search results from my predefined tool, Florida is the only state among the four options that currently imposes a definite limit for notification to affected individuals in case of a data breach. Florida’s law requires that notice be provided within 30 days after determination of the breach or reason to believe a breach occurred, unless delayed by law enforcement or measures to determine the scope of the breach and restore the integrity of the system1. The other states have more flexible or vague terms for the notification timeframe, such as “as soon as practicable” (Maine), “in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay” (New York), or “in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay, consistent with the legitimate needs of law enforcement” (California)2. References:

• Security Breach Notification Chart | Perkins Coie
• State Data Breach Notification Chart - International Association of …

 FACTA added a new section to the FCRA that requires any person who maintains or otherwise possesses consumer information, or any compilation of consumer information, derived from consumer reports for a business purpose, to properly dispose of any such information or compilation. The purpose of this provision is to reduce the risk of identity theft and other consumer harm resulting from improper disposal of consumer information. The FTC and other federal agencies have issued rules implementing this provision, which specify the reasonable measures that covered entities must take to ensure secure disposal of consumer information, such as burning, pulverizing, shredding, erasing, or otherwise modifying the information to make it unreadable or indecipherable (16 CFR § 682.3). References: 1, 2, 3

 The correct answer is D. If the algorithm uses information about protected classes to make automated decisions, Acme must ensure that the algorithm does not have a disparate impact on protected classes in the output. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) protects consumers from unfair, inaccurate, and discriminatory treatment by creditors and other businesses that use credit reports. The FCRA prohibits creditors from using information about protected classes, such as race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or because they receive income from a public assistance program, to make decisions about credit. In the case of Acme Student Loan Company, the algorithm is using information about protected classes to make automated decisions about whether to send payment reminder calls. This could have a disparateimpact on protected classes, such as people of color or people with low incomes. For example, people of color may be more likely to be identified as being at risk of default, even if they are just as likely to repay their loans as people of other races. Acme Student Loan Company must ensure that the algorithm does not have a disparate impact on protected classes. This could be done by using a variety of methods, such as:

• Testing the algorithm for accuracy, fairness, and bias before and after deployment
• Providing consumers with notice and consent options for the use of their data
• Allowing consumers to access, correct, or delete their data
• Implementing accountability and oversight mechanisms for the algorithm
• Ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations

References: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/how-to/ai-and-privacy-the-privacy-concerns-surrounding-ai-its-potential-impact-on-personal-data/articleshow/99738234.cms

https://pupuweb.com/iapp-cipp-us-qa-privacy-concerns-acme-student-loan-company-artificial-intelligence/

A private right of action is a legal provision that grants individuals the ability to bring a lawsuit against a party that has wronged them and to seek redress for the harm that they have suffered. A private right of action is a fundamental component of the U.S. judicial system and an essential element of enforcingprivacy rights. Privacy advocates argue that a private right of action is necessary to hold perpetrators of privacy violations accountable and to address the limitations of the FTC’s enforcement authority. However, businesses are concerned that a private right of action would lead to a proliferation of frivolous lawsuits that would burden responsible data processors and impede innovation. References:

• U.S. Private-Sector Privacy, Third Edition by Peter P. Swire, DeBrae Kennedy-Mayo, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3, pp. 35-36.
• How to end the deadlock on the private right of action by Paula Bruening, IAPP Privacy Perspectives, Jan 20, 2022.
• Private Right of Action (Legal Definition & Examples) by Lawrina, accessed on Jan 25, 2022.

The FTC is the primary federal agency responsible for enforcing privacy and data security laws in the United States. The FTC has broad jurisdiction over most commercial entities that collect, use, or share personal information from consumers. The FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, which includes unfair or deceptive privacy practices. The FTC can bring enforcement actions against companies that violate their own privacy policies, fail to provide adequate notice or choice to consumers, engage in unfair or harmful data practices, or breach consumers’ reasonable expectations of privacy. The FTC can also issue rules, guidelines, and reports on privacy and data security issues, as well as conduct investigations, workshops, and educational campaigns. References:

• IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Section I.A.1.a
• IAPP CIPP/US Textbook, Chapter 1, pp. 9-12
• FTC Privacy and Security Enforcement

The best way for Otto to minimize the privacy risks involved in using a cloud provider for the HR data is to ensure that the cloud provider abides by the contractual requirements by conducting an on-site audit. This would allow Otto to verify that the cloud provider has implemented adequate security measures, such as encryption, access controls, and backup systems, to protect the HR data from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure. It would also allow Otto to check that the cloud provider is complying with the applicable privacy laws and regulations, such as the CCPA, the APEC Privacy Framework, and the breach notification requirements. By conducting an on-site audit, Otto can identify any gaps or weaknesses in the cloud provider’s privacy practices and address them promptly. This would also demonstrate due diligence and accountability on the part of Filtration Station, which could mitigate the legal and reputational consequences of a data breach. References:

• [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 3: Data Assessments, pp. 77-78.
• IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Section III: Government and Court Access to Private-sector Information, Subsection B: Cross-Border Data Transfer, Topic 2: APEC Privacy Framework.
• IAPP CIPP/US Practice Questions, Question 125.

The Dodd-Frank Act was established to prevent the risky financial practices that led to the 2007–2008 financial crisis, which included issues similar to Noah’s experience with buying stocks without understanding the risks. The act includes provisions forconsumer protection in financial services and aims to prevent abusive practices in the financial industry

The Massachusetts Personal Information Security Regulation (201 CMR 17.00) requires that any person or entity that owns or licenses personal information of Massachusetts residents must implement and maintain a comprehensive written information security program that includes administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect such information. One of the technical requirements of the regulation is to encrypt all personal information of Massachusetts residents that is stored on laptops or other portable devices, regardless of where the equipment is located12. The regulation defines personal information as a person’s first name and last name or first initial and last name in combination with any one or more of the following data elements that relate to such person: (a) Social Security number; (b) driver’s license number or state-issued identification card number; or © financial account number, or credit or debit card number, with or without any required security code, access code, personal identification number or password, that would permit access to a resident’s financial account1. The regulation also requires encryption of all transmitted records and files containing personal information that will travel across public networks, and encryption of all data containing personal information to be transmitted wirelessly1. References:

• Regulation 201 CMR 17.00: Standards for the Protection of Personal Information of MA Residents
• Massachusetts Law Raises the Bar for Data Security

 Employers have a duty to protect the personal information of their current and former employees, as well as applicants, from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure. This duty may arise from federal or state laws, such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), or the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), or from contractual obligations, such as non-disclosure agreements or privacy policies. Employers may retain sensitive employment records, such as performance evaluations, disciplinary actions, medical records, or background checks, for a legitimate business purpose, such as complying with legal requirements, defending against lawsuits, or conducting audits. However, employers must ensure that these records are stored securely, accessed only by authorized personnel, and disposed of properly when no longer needed. References: IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.1.1, IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Domain IV, Objective B

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is a federal law that protects the privacy of student education records and gives parents or eligible students the right to access, amend, and control the disclosure of their records. FERPA applies to all educational agencies and institutions that receive funds under any program administered by the U.S. Department of Education12

FERPA requires schools to do all of the following:

• Verify the identity of students who make requests for access to their records. Schools must use reasonable methods to identify and authenticate the identity of parents, students, school officials, and any other parties to whom they disclose education records12
• Provide students with access to their records within a specified amount of time. Schools must provide parents or eligible students with an opportunity to inspect and review the student’s education records within 45 days of receiving a request. Schoolsare not required to provide copies of records unless it is impossible for parents or eligible students to review the records at the school12
• Respond to all reasonable student requests regarding explanation of their records. Schools must provide parents or eligible students with an opportunity to request the amendment of the student’s education records that they believe are inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise in violation of the student’s privacy rights. Schools must consider the request and decide whether to amend the records within a reasonable time. If the school decides not to amend the records, it must inform the parent or eligible student of their right to a hearing on the matter12

FERPA does not require schools to do the following:

• Obtain student authorization before releasing directory information in their records. Directory information is information contained in a student’s education record that would not generally be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed. Examples of directory information include the student’s name, address, phone number, e-mail address, date and place of birth, major field of study, participation in sports and activities, dates of attendance, degrees and awards received, and most recent school attended. Schools may disclose directory information without consent unless the parent or eligible student has opted out of such disclosure. Schools must notify parents and eligible students of the types of information they designate as directory information and of their right to opt out of directory information disclosure12

Therefore, the correct answer is D. Obtain student authorization before releasing directory information in their records.

References:

• Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
• IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 4: Federal Privacy Laws, Section 4.3: The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

Janice’s first draft of the privacy policy may be too restrictive and impractical for Fitness Coach, Inc. to follow, given the nature of its business and the expectations of its customers. By limiting the retention of personal information to one year and requiring written consent for any third-party sharing, the policy may create operational challenges and customer dissatisfaction. For example, customers may want to resume their fitness programs after a long hiatus and expect the company to have their previous records and preferences. Similarly, third-party contractors may need access to customer information to provide better services and tailor their classes. If the company fails to adhere to its own privacy policy, it may face legal consequences, reputational damage, and loss of trust from its customers. Therefore, the company should adopt a more realistic and flexible privacy policy that balances its business needs and its customers’ privacy rights. References:

• Privacy Policy for Health Coaches
• Privacy Policies for Online Coaches
• Privacy Policy - Coaching.com

The scenario suggests that the company lacked adequate rules about access to customer information, which increased the risk of unauthorized access and data breach. Implementing a comprehensive policy for accessing customer information would have helped the company to limit the access to only those who need it for legitimate purposes, and to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the data. This is also one of the recommendations that Roberta made in her report. References:

• CIPP/US Practice Questions (Sample Questions), Question 116, Answer A, Explanation A.
• IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 5, Section 5.2, p. 143.

The Stored Communications Act (SCA) is a federal law that regulates the privacy of electronic communications that are stored by third-party service providers, such as email providers, cloud storage providers, or social media platforms. The SCA prohibits unauthorized access to or disclosure of such communications, unless authorized by law or by the consent of the user or the service provider . The SCA also provides exceptions for certain types of access or disclosure, such as those made for law enforcement purposes, for the protection of the service provider’s rights or property, or for the consent of the subscriber or customer .

One of the exceptions to the SCA is where the service provider gives consent to the access or disclosure of the stored communications. This means that if a third-party service provider agrees to cooperate with an investigation or a request for information, the access or disclosure is lawful under the SCA. Consent can be express or implied, depending on the circumstances and the terms of service of the provider. For example, if a service provider has a policy that allows it to disclose user information to third parties for legitimate purposes, the provider has impliedly consented to the access or disclosure of the stored communications. However, if a service provider has a policy that prohibits such disclosure, the provider has not consented to the access or disclosure of the stored communications.

In the scenario, Evan’s undercover investigation may have been authorized by the SCA if he obtained the consent of the third-party service provider that stored the electronic communications of the employee who was suspected of misconduct. For instance, if the employee used a company email account or a cloud storage service that had a policy that allowed the service provider to disclose user information to the employer or to law enforcement, Evan may have been able to access or disclose the stored communications with the consent of the service provider. However, if the employee used a personal email account or a cloud storage service that had a policy that protected user privacy and prohibited such disclosure, Evan may have violated the SCA by accessing or disclosing the stored communications without the consent of the service provider.

References: : [Stored Communications Act], 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2712 : [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 8, Section 8.2.2. : [The Stored Communications Act: An Old Statute for Modern Problems], pp. 10-11.

 According to the Privacy Shield Framework, an organization that transfers personal data to a third party acting as an agent must ensure that the agent does all of the following1:

• Uses the transferred data only for limited and specified purposes;
• Provides the same level of privacy protection as is required by the Privacy Shield Principles;
• Takes reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure that the agent effectively processes the personal information transferred in a manner consistent with the organization’s obligations under the Principles;
• Requires the agent to notify the organization if it makes a determination that it can no longer meet its obligation to provide the same level of protection as is required by the Principles;
• Upon notice, takes reasonable and appropriate steps to stop and remediate unauthorized processing; and
• Provides a summary or a representative copy of the relevant privacy provisions of its contract with that agent to the Department of Commerce upon request.

Therefore, the only option that is not required by the Privacy Shield Framework is D. Enters a contract with the organization that states the third party will process data according to the consent agreement. While the organization must obtain the individual’s consent for certain types of data transfers, such as those involving sensitive data or onward transfers to controllers, the organization does not have to include the consent agreement in the contract with the agent. The contract must, however, ensure that the agent will process the data in accordance with the individual’s choices and expectations, as well as the Privacy Shield Principles2.

References: 1: Privacy Shield Framework3, Section 3 (b); 2: Privacy Shield Framework3, Section 2 (b) and ©; 3: Privacy Shield Framework.

According to the Wiley study guide, one of the steps in developing a privacy policy is to conduct a privacy assessment, which involves identifying the organization’s information goals and needs, as well as the legal and regulatory requirements that apply to its data collection and use practices3. By spending more time understanding the company’s information goals, Janice would have been able to tailor the privacy policy to fit the company’s business model and customer expectations, while still complying with the relevant privacy laws and standards. This would have also helped Janice to address Cheryl’s concerns about the impact of the policy on the company’s operations and customer relationships, and to propose solutions that balance privacy protection and service delivery.

References:

1: https://iapp.org/certify/cippus/

2: https://iapp.org/certify/get-certified/cippus/

3: https://www.wiley.com/en-be/IAPP+CIPP+US+Certified+Information+Privacy+Professional+Study+Guide-p-9781119755517

4: https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/quiz/10-CIPP-US-practice-questions-to-test-your-privacy-knowledge

5: https://www.study4exam.com/iapp/free-cipp-us-questions

https://www.passitcertify.com/iapp/cipp-us-questions.html

The data privacy leader needs to identify all the personal data that the Company has received from the retailer, as well as the purposes, retention periods, and sharing practices of such data. Since the data inventory is obsolete, the data privacy leader cannot rely on it to provide accurate and complete information. Therefore, the next best source of information is to interview the key marketing personnel who are responsible for the partnership with the retailer and the use of the personal data. The marketing personnel can provide insights into the data flows, the data categories, the data processing activities, and the data protection measures that the Company has implemented. They can also help the data privacy leader to locate the relevant documents, contracts, and records that can support the investigation. References: [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 5: Data Management, p. 97-98; IAPP Privacy Tech Vendor Report, Data Mapping and Inventory, p. 9-10.

The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights is a set of principles that the Obama administration proposed in 2012 to guide the development of privacy legislation and policies in the United States. The report that introduced the bill of rights stated that it was "generally based on the widely accepted Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs)"1, which are a set of standards that originated in the 1970s and have influenced many privacy laws and frameworks around the world. The FIPPs include concepts such as individual control, transparency, security, accountability, and data minimization2. The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights adapted and expanded these principles to address the challenges and opportunities of the digital economy1. References: 1: Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World: A Framework for Protecting Privacy and Promoting Innovation in the Global Digital Economy2, page 92: IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide3, page 17.

The U.S. Wiretap Act prohibits the interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications, unless one of the statutory exceptions applies. One of these exceptions is the ordinary course of business exception, which allows an employer or service provider to intercept communications that are made in the ordinary course of its business, such as for quality control, training, or security purposes. This exception does not apply to communications that are not related to the business, such as personal calls or emails, or to communications that are intercepted for other reasons, such as harassment, discrimination, or retaliation. The scope and applicability of this exception may vary depending on the context, the consent of the parties, and the state law. The other options are not valid exceptions under the Wiretap Act. References: 1, 2, 3, 4

The federal act that does NOT contain provisions for preempting stricter state laws is the Telemarketing Consumer Protection and Fraud Prevention Act1. This act authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to establish and enforce rules for telemarketing practices, such as the Do Not Call Registry, the prohibition of robocalls, and the disclosure of material information2. However, the act also explicitly states that it does not "annul, alter, or affect, or exempt any person subject to the provisions of this section from complying with, the laws of any State with respect to telemarketing practices, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with any provision of this section, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency"1. This means that states can enact and enforce their own laws regarding telemarketing, as long as they are not less protective than the federal law. In contrast, the other three acts listed in the question do contain preemption clauses that limit or override the authority of states to regulate certain aspects of electronic communications, online privacy, and credit transactions345. References: 1: Telemarketing Consumer Protection and Fraud Prevention Act2: Telemarketing Sales Rule | Federal Trade Commission3: CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business4: Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (“COPPA”) | Federal Trade Commission5: Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 - Wikipedia : IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 5: Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Privacy, p. 144-145, 149-150, 154-155

According to HIPAA, a business associate is a person or entity that performs certain functions or activities that involve the use or disclosure of protected health information (PHI) on behalf of, or provides services to, a covered entity. A business associate agreement (BAA) is a written contract between a covered entity and a business associate that establishes the permitted and required uses and disclosures of PHI by the business associate, as well as the safeguards that the business associate must implement to protect the PHI. In this scenario, MedApps is a business associate of Miraculous, since it provides a telehealth app that involves the use or disclosure of PHI on behalf of Miraculous. Therefore, HIPAA would require Miraculous and MedApps to enter into a BAA before using the telehealth app. The other options are incorrect because HIPAA does not prohibit the use of cloud hosting services or the hosting of in-person appointment data in the cloud, as long as the appropriate safeguards and agreements are in place. HIPAA also does not require patient consent for the sharing of PHI with third parties for treatment, payment, or health care operations purposes, which would include the use of the telehealth app. References:

• HIPAA and Telehealth - Office for Civil Rights
• HIPAA Rules for telehealth technology - Telehealth.HHS.gov
• Notification of Enforcement Discretion for Telehealth - Office for Civil Rights
• Guidance: How the HIPAA Rules Permit Covered Health Care Providers and Health Plans to Provide Audio-Only Telehealth - Office for Civil Rights
• HIPAA Compliant App - Telehealth.org
• IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide - Chapter 3: HIPAA and HITECH, pages 75-76, 81-82, 86-87.