CMA updates on ticket and booking website, news of forthcoming Supreme Court judgments, ICO sandbox reopens and guidance on national security certificates in this week's round-up of news not featured separately on the website.
CMA satisfied with changes to the StubHub website
The CMA has said it is now satisfied that StubHub have changed their website to address concerns that it was not complying with commitments following a consumer law investigation.
Based on the evidence it has now seen and monitoring it has carried out, the agency is now satisfied that the site:
ICO reopens its regulatory sandbox to help with children’s privacy and data sharing
The ICO is reopening its free regulatory sandbox for projects focusing children’s privacy or data sharing. Projects submitted should be “at the cutting edge of innovation and may be operating in particularly challenging areas of data protection, where there is genuine uncertainty about what compliance looks like.”
In particular they would like to hear from those concentrating on the issues posed by the implementation of our Age Appropriate Design Code or those developing products and services that support complex data sharing in the public interest.
CMA provides update on monitoring of pricing practices of online travel agents
Booking.com and Expedia have confirmed to the CMA that hotels using either site remain free to offer different prices, terms and availability when listing their rooms on other online travel agents. Formal commitments made in 2015 from Booking.com and Expedia not to enforce ‘wide’ parity clauses expired on 1st July 2020 but the companies have confirmed that they will continue to act in accordance with the commitments going forward. Both companies have also confirmed that their commitments will still apply in the UK.
Supreme Court to hand down judgment in the FRAND litigation next week
The Supreme Court will hand down judgment in three FRAND cases on 26th August. The questions at issue in all three cases are as follows:
1. Does the English court have the power or jurisdiction, or is it a proper exercise of any such power or jurisdiction without the parties’ agreement:
to grant an injunction restraining infringement of a UK SEP unless the defendant enters into a global licence under a multinational patent portfolio;
to determine the rates/terms for such a licence; and
to declare that such rates/terms are FRAND?
2. If the answer to (i) is "yes", is England the proper forum for such a claim in the circumstances of the Conversant proceedings?
3. What is the meaning and effect of the non-discrimination component of the FRAND undertaking and does it mean that materially the same licence terms as offered to Samsung must be offered to Huawei in the circumstances of the Unwired case?
4. Does the CJEU’s decision in Huawei v ZTE mean that a SEP owner is entitled to seek an injunction restraining infringement of those SEPs in circumstances such as those of the Unwired case??
The background facts for each case are available on the Supreme Court website.
National Security Certificates guidance published
The DCMS has published guidance for those who wish to apply for a national security certificate under the Data Protection Act 2018.
Certificates are not mandatory but they are meant to give a controller greater legal certainty that national security applies to their data processing. They may apply to personal data which can be specifically identified or cover a broader category of personal data and be pre-emptive as well as retrospective.