Join our 7th annual Trend Watch webinar to learn how tactical decision-making can help you conquer California’s challenging legal environment. Our focus areas will include:
- New developments in California privacy law
- Prop. 65 by the numbers
- Need-to-know environmental law changes
For the third time in 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court addressed the scope of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) — this time in Mosby v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital. In a unanimous decision, the court held that BIPA’s “health care exemption” is not limited to patients’ biometric information (such as fingerprint scans), but also extends to biometric information collected, used, or stored for healthcare treatment, payment, or operations — regardless of its source.1 This decision also marks the Illinois Supreme Court’s first BIPA-related decision where it adopted the defendants’ proposed interpretation of the statute. (more…)
On 4 July 2023, the EU Commission proposed a new Regulation for procedural rules to standardize and streamline cooperation between EU Member State Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) when enforcing the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in cross-border cases (GDPR Procedural Regulation). The GDPR adopts a decentralized enforcement model. National EU Member State DPAs are competent to enforce the GDPR on their respective territories. However, in cases with cross-border elements, the GDPR requires all concerned DPAs to cooperate in accordance with the GDPR’s “one-stop-shop” through cooperation and consistency mechanisms. Although these mechanisms establish key principles of cooperation and provide the basis for consistent application of the GDPR throughout the EU, the EU Commission determined more legislative action was needed to increase efficiency and harmonization of cross-border GDPR enforcement action.
On April 27, 2023, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, signed into law the state’s My Health My Data Act (the Act), which will become effective on March 31, 2024 (June 30, 2024, for small businesses). Despite its name, this is a comprehensive privacy bill that will affect many entities, including those outside of the traditional “health” context. The rights and obligations may apply to individuals other than Washington residents, as the law defines consumers as including persons whose data is merely collected or otherwise processed in the state.
For the second time in two weeks, the Illinois Supreme Court clarified the scope of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (BIPA) — this time in Cothron v. White Castle. The court, in a 4–3 decision, held that BIPA claims accrue each time biometric data is collected or transmitted, and not just the first time.1
Last week, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a five-year statute of limitations applies to all claims under the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (BIPA), further expanding the already broad scope and application of the Illinois statute.1
The bankruptcy court presiding over the Chapter 11 cases of digital asset platform Celsius Network LLC and its affiliates (Celsius) issued a key ruling on January 4, 2023 (the Decision), by concluding that a significant portion of digital assets held in Celsius’ customer accounts are property of the debtors’ estates, and holders of such accounts accordingly are unsecured creditors.1 The digital assets at issue in the Decision were held under Celsius’ “Earn” program, pursuant to which the digital assets were not segregated or held in custody but used freely by Celsius to generate investment returns, and were subject to contract terms stating that the digital assets belonged to Celsius.
On October 5, 2022, a federal jury in the Northern District of California convicted former Uber Chief Security Officer Joseph Sullivan of obstructing a federal proceeding and misprision of a felony for his role in deceiving management and the federal government to cover up a 2016 data breach that exposed personally identifiable information (“PII”) of approximately 57 million users, including approximately 600,000 drivers’ license numbers, of the ride-hailing service. Sullivan, a former federal prosecutor, appears to be the first corporate executive criminally prosecuted—let alone convicted—for his response to a data security incident perpetrated by criminals. Sullivan faces a maximum of five years in prison for the obstruction charge, and a maximum three years in prison for the misprision charge.
A Caremark-based claim against a board of directors alleging a failure to monitor corporate operations has been said to be “the most difficult theory in corporation law upon which a plaintiff might hope to win a judgment,” or at least to withstand a motion to dismiss. Yet, Caremark has taken on renewed importance — as noted by this blog — following recent high-profile successes on duty-to-oversee claims, most notably in Marchand v. Barnhill in 2019 and In re Boeing in September 2021, and recent shareholder lawsuits alleging that data breach- and cybersecurity-related failures would have been preventable were it not for oversight failures by corporate officers and directors, are being plead asserting Caremark claims. (more…)
This article originally appeared in Law360 on November 3, 2021.
Sidley lawyers Brenna Jenny and Sujit Raman recently published an article in Law360 entitled How To Minimize FCA Cyber Fraud Enforcement Risk, which analyzes the implications of DOJ’s recent formation of a Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative to use the FCA to pursue cybersecurity-related fraud. Although the Initiative focuses generally on government contractors and grant recipients—and does not, by its terms, impose any new cybersecurity requirements—the project promises in particular to attract whistleblowers in the defense industry, as recent years have witnessed high-profile FCA cases implicating alleged cybersecurity non-compliance in that sector. The healthcare industry may also see a marked increase in cybersecurity-related qui tams, especially in light of a recent Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General report taking the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to task for failing to hold hospitals accountable for the cybersecurity of their networked devices. Healthcare providers and medical device manufacturers, in addition to other government contractors and grantees, would do well to heed DOJ’s warning that “cybersecurity failures…are prime candidates for potential False Claims Act enforcement.”