On February 16, 2017, the New York State Department of Financial Services (the “NYDFS”) issued its final regulations setting forth minimum requirements for NYDFS-regulated entities to address cybersecurity risk (“Final Regulations”). The NYDFS issued the Final Regulations after considering feedback and criticism received during two comment periods — one following the NYDFS’s initial publication of the proposed regulation (on September 13, 2016) and a second comment period after the NY DFS published a revised version of the regulation (on December 28, 2016.)
The Final Regulations will be effective as of March 1, 2017, with a transitional period of 180 days from that date for Covered Entities to comply with the Final Regulations, except for certain enumerated provisions for which longer compliance periods are specified. The annual certification of compliance (covering the prior calendar year) will be required beginning on February 15, 2018.
On December 28, 2016, the New York State Department of Financial Services (the “NYDFS”) issued revised proposed regulations setting forth minimum requirements for NYDFS-regulated entities to address cybersecurity risk (“Revised Proposed Regulations”). The NYDFS issued the Revised Proposed Regulations after considering feedback and criticism submitted during a 45-day comment period to address the initial proposal, issued on September 13, 2016. The agency has announced an additional and final 30-day comment period from the date of publication to address new comments not previously raised in the original comment process.
After having received over 150 comments on proposed cybersecurity regulations, the New York Department of Financial Services will delay implementation and initiate a new round of notice and comment on a further revised version of cybersecurity regulations. As we reported previously, NYDFS proposed new cybersecurity regulations for the financial sector in September of this year, and the comment period closed mid-November. NYDFS previously announced that the new rules would be effective January 1, 2017 and that covered entities would have 180 days to comply. Reuters reports that NYDFS will now publish a further revised version of proposed regulations on December 28 for public comment with a new effective date of March 1, 2017.
*This article originally appeared in L.A. Biz at bizjournals.com on Oct. 11, 2016.
Over the past few months, Taylor Swift and Kanye West’s feud over a recorded phone call has put the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) in the spotlight.
Who can record a call? What type of consent is needed? These questions are not just fodder for celebrity tabloids but fundamentally important issues for companies recording customer service calls.
CIPA, codified in California’s Penal Code Section 630 et seq., is an invasion of privacy statute originally designed to restrict wire-tapping and the recording of calls snatched from the airways at the dawn of the wireless telephone industry.
However, in recent years, plaintiffs’ lawyers have embraced Section 632.7 of the Act as a sword to attack companies that record customer service calls.
On September 13, 2016, the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) proposed regulations outlining minimum requirements for NYDFS-regulated entities to address cybersecurity risk (“Proposed Regulations”). The NYDFS regulates entities and products that are subject to New York insurance, banking and financial services laws. Because the scope of the Proposed Regulations includes any entity “operating under or required to operate under a license, registration, charter, certificate, permit, accreditation or similar authorization under the banking law, the insurance law or the financial services law,” the Proposed Regulations will cover a broad range of entities in the banking, insurance and financial services industries, including insurance producers and premium finance companies.
On March 24, Tennessee enacted a law amending its breach notification law, originally enacted in 2005. The new amendment requires businesses and government agencies to notify citizens affected by data breaches within 45 days of discovering the breach. Exceptions to the 45-day time limit will be allowed only when required for law enforcement purposes. The amendment also specifies that unauthorized access of information by employees of the business or agency that holds the information triggers the 45-day notification requirement.
This February, the California Attorney General released the “California Data Breach Report,” summarizing developments from 2012-2015. Drawing from 657 reports filed with the California AG impacting 49 million records, the report is notable for its “recommendations.” These recommendations are ostensibly non-binding guidance that may nonetheless serve as the basis for the AG’s understanding of what constitutes “reasonable” data security in future investigations and enforcement actions.
When the California legislature closed out their 2015 session on September 11 of 2015, they sent three bills to Governor Jerry Brown proposing amendments to the state’s data breach laws which were all signed into law on October 6 and took effect January 1, 2016. The new laws address what license plate data automated readers may collect, defined encryption, and critically, made significant changes to the details of the required content and format of data breach notifications. S.B. 570 specified that data breach notices must be titled “Notice of Data Breach” and be broken into sections titled “What Happened,” “What Information Was Involved,” “What We Are Doing,” “What You Can Do” and “For More Information.” Notice formatting must be in at least 10-point font and call attention to the notice’s “nature and significance.” A model notification, which companies may use to comply with these content amendments, is also provided in the bill (see below). These formatting requirements would not be prohibited under other state breach notification laws, and so we will likely soon see this format become a de facto national standard for efficiency’s sake.
On June 29, the FTC and New Jersey Attorney General announced the filing of a joint complaint, and proposed, stipulated settlement, against an Ohio-based app developer, Equiliv Investments LLC and an individual officer of the company. The federal and state enforcement agencies alleged that Equiliv marketed a free app that users believed would let them earn rewards points for playing games or downloading affiliated apps. The agencies alleged that Equiliv explicitly represented the app was free of malware when in fact the app’s main purpose was actually to load malicious software on the users’ phone to mine virtual currency. Allegedly, the app took control of the devices’ computing resources and degraded the phones’ performance by draining battery life and data plans, and causing the devices to charge slowly. The malware was alleged to pool the computing resources of consumers’ mobile devices to benefit the company’s effort to generate virtual currencies through a peer-to-peer network to compete with other devices in solving complex mathematical equations – a process known as “mining.”
New legislation out of Hartford means that Connecticut joins Massachusetts in imposing strict state requirements for data protection. S.B. 949. Additionally, the new law amends Connecticut’s data breach notification law, making Connecticut the first in the nation to affirmatively require entities that experience a reportable data breach to offer free credit monitoring to residents affected by the breach. The legislation further imposes significant new requirements on health insurers, as well as contractors that receive confidential information from state agencies, to maintain minimum data security protections. While health insurers have until 2017 to come into full compliance, the requirements for state contractors are effective as of July 1, 2015.