Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

#Hashtag Hashing: Still Not as Helpful as You Think!

By Julia Kadish & Samantha Davis on July 29, 2024
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Antitrust-Law-Blog-Image-FTC-660x283

In a recent blog post, the FTC again cautioned entities that hashing data does not make that data anonymous. Hashing is a process that takes a particular input, such as a phone number or email address, and uses a mathematical formula to create a different output. However, hashing does not make the output “anonymized” from the FTC’s perspective. This is because the hashing can be undone and reveal information that was initially obscured.

The Agency first highlighted its views on “hashing” in 2012. Since then, the FTC has brought enforcement actions against companies that have made statements about data use and collection practices that relate to hashing. For instance, if a company that sells hashed information states in their privacy policy that they do not share or sell personal information with third parties because they believe hashed information is no longer identifiable, that company could face allegations of unfair or deceptive trade practices under the FTC’s Section 5 authority as the FTC takes the perspective that the hashed information is, in fact, still identifiable.

According to the FTC, although hashing may facially appear to conceal personal information, it still creates a unique identifier that corresponds to the initial input. This means that hashed information still has the ability to be tied to a particular individual. Sharing hashed information does not provide users with meaningful anonymity. Companies that utilize hashing believing it “anonymizes” or reduces the data’s sensitivity may face scrutiny if they make certain claims to the contrary about their data sharing practices.

Putting it into practice. The FTC’s position on “hashing” is not new. That said, the renewed statements in this blog signals the Agency’s likely upcoming focus on enforcing against businesses that use persistent unique identifiers in serving targeted advertising but nevertheless make statements that only “non-identifiable data” is shared. Companies that share hashed information or use other unique ID’s should do their diligence to ensure public-facing statements are consistent with practices.

Photo of Julia Kadish Julia Kadish

Julia Kadish is a partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the firm’s Chicago office and a member of the Privacy and Cybersecurity Team.

Read more about Julia KadishEmail
Photo of Samantha Davis Samantha Davis

Samantha Davis is an associate in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the firm’s New York office and a member of the Privacy & Cybersecurity Team.

Read more about Samantha DavisEmail
  • Posted in:
    Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Blog:
    Eye On Privacy
  • Organization:
    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo