The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a computer fraud rider to a “Blanket Crime Policy” covers losses from a hacker’s theft of customer credit card and checking account data.
On the heels of Vermont’s recent amendment to its data breach notification law, Connecticut’s legislature recently amended its own data breach notification law. The amended law will take effect on October 1, 2012.
As mentioned in a prior post on this blog, earlier this year the Indian Ministry of Communications and Information Technology issued new privacy and data security rules under the Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011 (the “Privacy Rules”). The strict consent requirements relating to the collection… Continue Reading
On May 12, 2011, the Obama Administration released its legislative proposal concerning cybersecurity. The stated focus of the proposal is to shore up cybersecurity measures to protect the American people, the Nation’s critical infrastructure, and the Federal Government’s networks and computers while providing a framework for safeguarding individual privacy and civil liberties.
On March 28, 2011, the Massachusetts Superior Court issued a Final Judgment by Consent between the Commonwealth and Briar Group, LLC that resolves allegations that Briar Group failed to take measures to protect consumer credit and debit card information. Pursuant to the Final Judgment, Briar Group must pay $110,000 to the Commonwealth, establish a written information security program (“WISP”), and implement a number of other information security measures to help protect customer data.
To assist companies to comply with European data protection laws, in particular those implemented in France, the French Data Protection Agency (known as “CNIL”) recently issued a set of guidelines organized by topic which provide elementary precautions to be taken by data controllers in several subject areas, including what types of conduct are prohibited as well as the CNIL’s recommendations in these areas.
As we’ve discussed in prior posts, newly effective regulations promulgated under Massachusetts’ recent data security law, Mass. Gen. Law ch. 93H, have raised the bar for data security compliance, and they have a long reach. The regulations are national and international in scope, as they apply to all companies – wherever located– using personal data… Continue Reading
On March 25, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced that it had entered into a settlement with entertainment operator, Dave & Buster’s, Inc., for alleged violations of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, and for “engag[ing] in a number of practices that, taken together, failed to provide reasonable and appropriate security for personal information on its networks.”
The settlement marks the 27th case brought by the FTC against a company for insufficient data security practices.
On March 9, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission and 35 state attorneys general announced a negotiated settlement with LifeLock, Inc. which resolves charges that LifeLock misrepresented the nature and effectiveness of the identity theft protection services it offers, and made false claims about its own data security practices. In the words of FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz, “While LifeLock promised consumers complete protection against all types of identity theft, in truth, the protection it actually provided left enough holes that you could drive a truck through it.”
In anticipation of the Swine Flu and the consequences that it may have upon the continuity of the business of companies, the French Data Protection Agency (known under the acronym "CNIL") recently issued recommendations regarding employers’ collection of employee data in connection with their swine flu business continuity programs. The French government has strongly recommended… Continue Reading
Undersecretary Barbara Anthony, of the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, announced today revisions to Massachusetts’ data security regulations, as well as an extension of the applicable compliance deadline from January 1, 2010 to March 1, 2010. (Previous to an earlier extension, the compliance deadline was May 1, 2009.) The revised regulations emphasize… Continue Reading
S.B. 227, which becomes effective on January 1, 2010, will require encryption of all personal information leaving the “logical or physical controls of the data collector,” including electronic data on a “data storage device.”
On April 30, 2009, Representative Bobby Rush (D-Ill) introduced H.R. 2221, the Data Accountability and Trust Act. The bill is nearly identical to H.R. 958, introduced by Rep. Rush in the 110th Congress, and is similar to the Data Accountability and Trust Act, introduced by Rep. Stearns (R-FL) in the 109th Congress. Of course, the newest “Data Accountability and Trust Act” is only the most recent of dozens of bills proposed over the last several years that would implement uniform federal breach notification requirements and preempt the 44 state laws requiring notification. Rep. Rush’s latest bill also includes data security provisions and would preempt the growing number of state laws imposing such requirements.
On Thursday, the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation (“OCABR”) revised and postponed — for the second time — its comprehensive data security regulations. The new deadline for all covered entities to achieve full compliance with the Massachusetts regulations is January 1, 2010.
On June 10, Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell signed into law a bill to safeguard Social Security numbers and other personal information. The law imposes a civil penalty of up to $500,000 on violators. The new law takes effect October 1, 2008.
According to a proposed settlement announced by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) on March 27, 2008, discount retailer TJX will be required to implement a comprehensive information security program to remedy deficiencies in protecting sensitive consumer information. If approved, the settlement will resolve allegations that the company engaged in practices that failed to provide reasonable and… Continue Reading
On Saturday, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 779, legislation that would have amended California’s landmark data security breach legislation. The bill would have been the first to follow law enacted by Minnesota earlier this year and effective August 1, 2007, that amended Minnesota’s security breach notification law by, among other things, prohibiting businesses from retaining certain payment card data after authorization of a transaction.
Massachusetts is now the 39th state to enact a personal data breach notification law. On August 2, Governor Deval Patrick signed the law, requiring that businesses and government agencies notify residents of data breaches in certain situations.
We thought it might be helpful to provide citations to the 37 state (plus D.C. and Puerto Rico) breach notification laws that cover private entities (Oklahoma’s law, that only addresses state agencies, is not included). We also provide links, or uploaded copies, where available.
On July 12th, Oregon Governor Theodore R. Kulongoski signed into law S.B. 583, an omnibus data security bill scheduled to take effect on October 1. Oregon is the 38th state to enact a breach notification law.
Lawmakers in six states have responded quickly to the massive data breach at TJX Companies, Inc. with various bills designed to strengthen merchant security and/or render companies liable for third party companies’ costs arising from data breaches. These latest bills – introduced in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas – represent a new front of… Continue Reading