*This article first appeared in the July 2018 issue of Digital Health Legal
Massive data breaches. Threats to medical devices. The Internet of Persons. Healthcare entities are all too familiar with the rising cyber threat. But they are also familiar with the complex array of laws and regulations in the United States that attempt to address the threat and the potentially significant compliance costs and risks caused by that complexity. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s recent and long-awaited decision in LabMD v. Federal Trade Commission, which trimmed the sails of one of the primary regulators of the healthcare information security landscape, may thus appear to some, at first blush, to be a necessary corrective. Yet closer inspection shows that the Eleventh Circuit’s decision raises more questions than it answers – and that its true implications will only become clear once we see how federal regulators, the courts, and perhaps Congress respond.
In October 2017, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted an Insurance Data Security Model Law. According to NAIC’s news release announcing this development, the Model Law was meant to build on the organization’s cybersecurity progress and create a “platform that enhances our mission of protecting consumers.” (For more information on the development of the Model Law, see our prior coverage.) (more…)
In recent years, the Federal Trade Commission has increasingly exercised its enforcement authority to target deceptive and unfair information security practices. During this time, enforcement actions have targeted companies for failing to honor their promises to implement “reasonable” or “industry standard” security practices, defend against well-known security threats, put in place basic security measures, or take many other basic data security steps. And despite challengers arguing that the FTC provided insufficient notice before pursuing these actions or that the actions otherwise exceeded the FTC’s Section 5 enforcement authority, the Commission generally has a track record of successfully defending its prerogatives. (more…)
Although the prospect of federal legislation on data privacy remains uncertain, states appear to be stepping up the range of their activity on privacy and security. Washington State notably adopted a law on net neutrality and there is the prospect of a ballot initiative in California that would give individuals the right to know which categories of their or their children’s personal data have been collected or traded by businesses. Though Vermont is one of the smallest states, it has been active in privacy regulation and, on May 22, 2018, enacted the first state-level measure aimed at data brokers. (more…)
On May 24, 2018, President Donald Trump signed into law the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the Act). The Act is effective immediately except as otherwise stated in certain provisions.
The Act makes many significant modifications to the postcrisis financial regulatory framework, although it leaves the core of that framework intact.
One major consequence of the Act may be an increased potential for mergers, acquisitions and organic growth among regional and midsize banks, as well as community banks, because of provisions that increase the thresholds that must be met before various financial regulatory requirements apply.
Whether you are marking today with a glass of champagne, a shot of whiskey, or a hot cup of tea, today marks a significant day for privacy professionals world-wide.
Here’s to all of the privacy professionals who have put in so many hours to prepare for the GDPR, fully effective as of Friday May 25, 2018 at midnight in Brussels; that is 6 PM eastern on Thursday, May 24th for toasting purposes.
For business executives, policymakers, and consumers who have become aware of the GDPR in recent weeks and are interested in learning more, visit our GDPR resource page here.
Changes to data breach notification laws continue to pop up across the country this Spring. The latest comes from a new law signed by Arizona Governor Doug Ducey that amends the state’s data breach standards. Although much of the Arizona law has remained the same, the new law updates a few key provisions, including the definition of personal information, the requirements for the content of the data breach notice, the timing of notice, and the capping of penalties. (more…)
*This article first appeared in In-House Defense Quarterly on April 3, 2018
The growing volume and severity of cyber-attacks directed against public companies has caught the attention of federal regulators and investors. Recent guidance from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on disclosure and enforcement actions by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) make clear that cybersecurity is no longer a niche topic, but a concern significant enough to warrant the oversight of corporate boards of directors. A high-profile cyber incident may cause substantial financial and reputational losses to an organization, including the disruption of corporate business processes, destruction or theft of critical data assets, loss of goodwill, and shareholder and consumer litigation. More and more, directors are viewing cyber-risk under the broader umbrella of corporate strategy and searching for ways to help mitigate that risk. Increasingly, thought leaders, professional organizations, and government agencies are beginning to provide answers. (more…)
And then there were none. Alabama has joined the ranks of the other 49 states with breach notification requirements by enacting the Alabama Data Breach Notification Act of 2018 (the “Act”). The Act, which was signed into law by Alabama Governor, Kay Ivey on March 28, 2018, requires companies to provide Alabama residents with notification of a breach within 45 days of discovery. Notification is triggered by a determination of a breach that poses a risk of harm to impacted individuals. Alabama exempts from the definition of breach the good faith acquisition of sensitive personally identifying information by an employee or agent of a covered entity, unless the information is used for a purpose unrelated to the business or subject to further unauthorized use. Companies must notify the state AG in the same period if the breach requires notification of more than 1,000 “individuals” (defined as Alabama residents whose “sensitive personally identifiable information” was, or is reasonably believed to have been, accessed as a result of the breach). In addition, if more than 1,000 individuals are notified at a single time, companies must provide notice to consumer reporting agencies “without unreasonable delay.” Third parties who are contracted to process sensitive personally identifiable information must provide notice of a breach to the owner of that information within ten days of discovering the breach. Notice from a third party then triggers the 45-day notification period for the covered entity.