With less than three months to go before amendments to California’s far reaching data privacy law need to be signed into law, the CCPA landscape may be changing yet again, as several amendments debated in the state Senate Judiciary Committee on July 9th underwent significant modifications. Eight proposed CCPA amendments were on the committee’s agenda, and several were hotly debated in an hours-long session that extended late into the night. In the end, two of the bills had substantive modifications, another was stalled, one was defeated, and the rest made it out of the committee, with limited changes. Here we summarize the highlights.
Data aggregators and fintech providers are now offering services that let consumers manage their finances using information from multiple accounts at multiple financial institutions. This kind of consumer data access raises serious questions about the relationship between financial institutions and consumer-designated third parties. This webinar will cover the risks that come with consumer-permissioned information sharing, current gaps and solutions in the existing legal framework to address these risks and issues that can be addressed contractually between various stakeholders.
The SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) released two Risk Alerts, on April 16, 2019 and May 23, 2019, highlighting the importance of privacy and cybersecurity compliance for SEC-registered investment advisors and broker-dealers under Regulation S-P. As previously covered on Data Matters, OCIE has consistently identified cybersecurity as one of its main areas of focus for examinations.
Indeed, cybersecurity was once again identified by OCIE in its 2019 National Exam Program Examination Priorities (2019 Exam Priorities), which placed a particular emphasis on proper configuration of network storage devices, information security governance, and policies and procedures related to retail trading information security. With the issuance of the April 16 and May 23 Risk Alerts, OCIE has provided additional detail regarding specific issues that SEC-registered entities should focus on to mitigate privacy and cybersecurity risk, as well as to prepare for examinations.
Over the last few years, States have enacted increasingly aggressive legislation concerning data privacy and security, raising concerns that companies will be subject to a patchwork of different standards. Congress has recently taken notice, convening hearings on potential federal privacy legislation, with the possibility of preemption a hot topic during the hearings. Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) got into the act as well, releasing two notices of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) on potential changes to its the Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information (“Safeguards Rule”) and Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule (“Privacy Rule”) under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The proposed amendments – and particularly the proposed changes to the Safeguard Rule – signal the FTC’s desire to align its rules with those of key states and to further protect customer information held by financial institutions.
The UK Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) has carried out a multi-firm review of cybersecurity practices with a sample of 20 firms in the wholesale banking and asset management sectors (the “Report”). The review aimed to look more closely at how wholesale banking and asset management firms oversee and manage their cybersecurity, including the extent to which firms identify and mitigate relevant cyber risks and their current capability to respond to and recover from data security incidents.
On January 18, 2019, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) issued Circular Letter 2019-1 (the Circular Letter), addressing insurers’ use of external consumer data and information sources in underwriting for life insurance. The Circular Letter follows an investigation commenced by NYDFS regarding life insurers’ use of external data, which was initiated in light of reports that insurers were using algorithms and predictive models that include unconventional sources or types of external data. Among other things, the Circular Letter provides guidance that when insurers use external data sources in connection with underwriting decisions, (1) the use of external data sources must not result in any unlawful discrimination, (2) the underwriting or rating guidelines must be based on sound actuarial principle; and (3) life insurers must have adequate consumer disclosures to notify insureds or potential insureds of the right to receive the specific reasons for any adverse underwriting decision based on such data. (more…)
On December 28, 2018, Michigan adopted the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ (NAIC) Insurance Data Security Model Law in the form of Michigan H.B. 6491 (Act). By doing so, Michigan joins Ohio and South Carolina as the third state to adopt the Model Law and the fifth state – along with Connecticut and New York – to have enacted cybersecurity regulations focused on insurance companies. See CT Gen Stat § 38a-999b (2015); 23 NYCRR 500. (Please see our prior coverage for more information on Ohio and South Carolina’s adoption of the Model Law). Moreover, adoption of the Model Law is still gaining steam with Rhode Island potentially next in line.
On January 17, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) released its annual Risk Monitoring and Examination Priorities Letter (Letter), which identifies topics that FINRA will focus on in 2019. Unlike in previous years, this Letter primarily discusses new topics and priorities in areas of ongoing concern while not repeating topics that have been at the center of FINRA’s attention over the years. FINRA notes, however, that while traditional topics such as cybersecurity,1 recidivist brokers and anti-money-laundering (AML) may not be discussed extensively in the Letter, FINRA will nonetheless review firms for compliance regarding these areas of focus.
As always, firms should use the Letter to review their compliance and supervisory procedures carefully and make any necessary revisions. Firms also should be prepared to explain their compliance and supervisory policies in these areas in their upcoming FINRA examinations and provide documentation of relevant reviews. The following is a discussion of some of the more salient points of the FINRA Letter. (more…)
On December 19, 2018, Ohio adopted the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ (NAIC) Insurance Data Security Model Law. By doing so, Ohio joins South Carolina as the second state to have adopted the Model Law and the fourth state – along with Connecticut and New York – to have enacted cybersecurity regulations for insurance companies. See CT Gen Stat § 38a-999b (2015); 23 NYCRR 500. (For more information on South Carolina’s adoption of the Model Law, see our prior coverage.) (more…)
*This article was originally published by DataGuidance in October 2018.
On 6 September 2018, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (‘MAS’) issued a consultation paper on its draft notice on cyber hygiene (‘the Notice’) which will require financial institutions operating in Singapore to implement a set of fundamental controls to raise their overall level of cyber resilience. Han Ming Ho and Yuet Ming Tham, partners at Sidley, discuss and focus on the key features of the draft Notice.