According to the Privacy Shield Principles, an organization that self-certifies under the Privacy Shield Framework must provide individuals with the choice to opt out of the disclosure of their personal information to a third party or the use of their personal information for a purpose that is materially different from the purpose for which it was originally collected or subsequently authorized by the individual. To facilitate this choice, the organization must inform the individual of the type or identity of the third parties to which it discloses personal information and the purposes for which it does so. The organization must also provide a readily available and affordable independent recourse mechanism to investigate and resolve complaints and disputes regarding its compliance with the Privacy Shield Principles. If the organization transfers personal information to a third party acting as an agent, it must ensure that the agent provides at least the same level of privacy protection as is required by the Privacy Shield Principles and that it 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 Privacy Shield Principles. References:
* Privacy Shield Principles, section II. Choice Principle and section III. Accountability for Onward Transfer Principle
* [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], p. 67-68, section 3.2.1 and p. 69-70, section 3.2.2
* [IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge], p. 15-16, section C.1.b and p. 16-17, section C.1.c

* Implied consent is a form of consent that is inferred from the actions or inactions of the data subject, rather than explicitly expressed by the data subject1.
* Implied consent is generally considered a valid basis for processing personal data under certain circumstances, such as when the processing is necessary for the performance of a contract, the legitimate interests of the data controller, or the reasonable expectations of the data subject2.
* However, implied consent may not be sufficient for processing sensitive personal data, such as health, biometric, or genetic data, or for sending marketing communications, depending on the applicable laws and regulations2.
* In the U.S., there is no comprehensive federal privacy law that regulates the use of implied consent for data processing, but there are sector-specific laws and state laws that may impose different requirements and limitations3.
* Based on the scenarios given in the question, the situation that is most likely to involve a company operating under the assumption of implied consent is A. An employer contacts the professional references provided on an applicant's resume.
* This is because the employer may reasonably infer that the applicant has consented to the contact of the references by voluntarily providing their information on the resume, and that the contact is necessary for the legitimate interest of the employer to verify the applicant's qualifications and suitability for the job4.
* The other situations may not involve implied consent, but rather require explicit consent or provide opt- out options for the data subjects, depending on the type and purpose of the data processing and the relevant laws and regulations5 . For example:
* B. An online retailer subscribes new customers to an e-mail list by default. This may violate the CAN-SPAM Act, which requires online marketers to obtain affirmative consent from the recipients before sending commercial e-mail messages, and to provide a clear and conspicuous opt-out mechanism in every message5.
* C. A landlord uses the information on a completed rental application to run a credit report. This may violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires landlords to obtain written authorization from the applicants before obtaining their consumer reports, and to provide them with a copy of the report and a summary of their rights if they take any adverse action based on the report.
* D. A retail clerk asks a customer to provide a zip code at the check-out counter. This may violate the California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, which prohibits retailers from requesting and recording personal identification information from customers who pay with a credit card, unless the information is necessary for a special purpose, such as shipping or fraud prevention.
References: 1: Implied Consent 2: Consent 3: U.S. Private-Sector Privacy (CIPP/US) 4: [Reference Checks:
Tips for Job Applicants and Employers] 5: [CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business] : [Using Consumer Reports: What Landlords Need to Know] : [California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act] : [Reference Checks: Tips for Job Applicants and Employers] : [CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business] :
[Using Consumer Reports: What Landlords Need to Know] : [California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act]

The biggest potential privacy concern related to Chanel's use of this new software is scanning a client's social media accounts to use in a client profile without notice to the client. This could violate the client's reasonable expectation of privacy and consent, as well as the privacy policies of the social media platforms. The client may not be aware that their social media posts are being used for this purpose, and may not have given their permission or opt-in consent for such data collection and processing. This could also expose the client to potential discrimination or harm based on their social media activity, such as losing their appointment or being charged a cancellation fee. Furthermore, this practice could conflict with the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs), such as transparency, purpose specification, and data minimization12. References:
* CIPP/US Practice Questions (Sample Questions), Question 149, Answer A, Explanation A.
* IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 1, Section 1.1, p. 9-10.

While compliance with the Safeguards Rule helps in preventing breaches and ensuring data security, it does not necessarily exempt an entity from having to provide breach notifications as required by state laws. State breach notification laws typically have their own criteria for when notification is required, which may include factors like the type of data compromised, the potential risk of harm to individuals, and other circumstances surrounding the breach. While following the GLBA Safeguards Rule may demonstrate a commitment to data security, it doesn't automatically override the notification obligations imposed by state laws when a data breach occurs.