Page Comparison

I am passing on an inherited legal requirements document just to verify that everything stated there has been recorded correctly and nothing is missing.

/wiki/spaces/TRX/pages/4267018713

Information on the user-related data we are storing and what tools have access to it. Please consider the attached file and let me know if your team has any concerns. I am still collecting more information on how the Snowflake data is currently used. I know that we must pass on the transactional information there, but I'm not yet clear on what are the other analysis run using this data. Please let me know if your legal team would like to provide some input here.

We also wanted to consult whether the following case is acceptable from the legal perspective:

At the beginning of the mobile ordering flow a user needs to input the delivery address. That address gets passed onto the cart step if their selected service mode is delivery. Once a user enters the cart step, that's when they'll have to decide whether they want to check out as a guest or sign in/register. Also, in order to display an estimated delivery fee, we are sending this address data to our aggregators in order to provide a quote. Additionally, we are storing this information in our database in the order entry.

• Store locator (user inputs delivery address)

• Cart step (delivery price is calculated, user decides whether to checkout as a guest or register/sign-in)

4. Question: May we pass the address data to the aggregators and store it in our database before a user decides whether they wish to be a guest or sign in and before they place an order? Are we allowed to use this data for the purpose of providing a delivery fee quote?If that's problematic, we can simply decide not to disclose the delivery quote at this step and redirect them again to the cart page with provided pricing after a user selects "Continue as a Guest" and agrees to the required terms and policies. However, this will add an additional step of "returning to the cart", which we had initially eliminated in the Guest Checkout flow. Please see the flow below and let me know your thoughts. We can also jump on a call to review this if that's helpful.

System Architecture

• Transactional emails are moved from Braze to AWS SES

• Switch to AWS SES to send transactional emails

• Create email input field in Sanity

• Set up email subdomain structure

• Transactional emails have the same content

• Emails are sent from SES instead of Braze. This can confirmed by looking at the email subdomain

Haris

Authentication and Authorization

• Guest authentication is enabled

• Loyalty accounts are decoupled from guest users

• Develop a Guest Auth token since guests don't have accounts in Cognito or User DB

• Remove loyalty account check for guest checkout users

• Verify token generation and validation for guest users

• No error is triggered due to missing loyalty account

Magdalena

Data Security and Compliance

• Secure and compliant data storage

• Guest Token actions are limited and controlled

• Implement configurable time period for storing Guest Order data

• Add security measures to limit guest actions, implement a guard to restrict Guest Token usage

• Decide and implement logic for Guest Token removal

• Guest order data is removed after set period

• Allowed actions can be performed with Guest token - e.g. priceOrder, validateCommitOrder, commitOrder, getOrder, etc

• Unauthorized actions can’t be performed with Guest token

Magdalena

User Experience and Interface

• Complete frontend flows for guests users

• Remove 'Save Card' option at Payment step

• Add modal to allow users to ‘Continue as a guest’

• Adjust data displayed in the order confirmation page

• Guest users can’t save card

• Guest user is able to add email in modal and place order for all service modes

• Confirmation page display correct information

Magdalena

Legal

• Required legal disclaimers for guest checkout are in place

• Create a static page with guest checkout terms and conditions

n/a

Melina