Privacy Law Blog : Privacy Lawyers & Attorneys : Proskauer Rose Law Firm : CAN-SPAM, FCRA, FACTA

Missouri: HB 62 includes many provisions that are similar to other state laws requiring notice to individuals when the security of their personal information has been compromised. For example, HB 62 includes a “material risk of harm” trigger. In other words, a business is not required to notify Missouri residents if, after an appropriate investigation or consultation with relevant law enforcement authorities, the business determines that identity theft is not likely to result from the breach. In addition, a business is not required to notify state residents if the personal information compromised was encrypted. Like some other state laws, HB 62 also requires notice to the Missouri Attorney General and national consumer reporting agencies if more than 1,000 Missouri residents are notified, and allows the Attorney General to seek actual damages or civil penalties from persons that fail to comply with the law.

HB 62 applies to the “typical” categories of personal information, including Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers and information that would permit access to an individual’s financial accounts. But unlike most other state data breach notification laws, HB 62 also applies to medical and health insurance information, including an individual’s medical history, mental or physical condition, treatment or diagnosis, health insurance policy number and any other unique identifier used by a health insurer. Previously, only laws in California, Arkansas and Texas (see below) applied to this kind of information.

Texas:  On June 19, 2009, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed House Bill 2004 (“HB 2004”), which expanded the scope of Texas’ data breach notification law to include public sector entities and health information. Specifically, HB 2004 amends the definition of “sensitive personal information” to include health care information, such as information about an individual’s physical or mental health or payment for health care services. The bill also amends the definition of “breach of system security” to reach breaches of encrypted information “if the person accessing the data has the key required to decrypt the data.” Finally, HB 2004 makes the state’s breach notice obligations applicable to public sector entities and nonprofit athletic and sports associations.

North Carolina: As of October 1, 2009, entities doing business in North Carolina will be required to both provide more detailed data breach notices to individuals and be more forthcoming with the state’s attorney general. North Carolina Senate Bill 1017 (“SB 1017”), signed by Governor Bev Perdue on July 27, 2009, amends North Carolina’s data breach notification law in two significant ways. First, SB 1017 requires notice to the attorney general anytime a business notifies North Carolina residents of a breach. Previously, such notice had been required only for breaches affecting more than 1,000 people. Second, notices to individuals affected by a breach will now be required to include a telephone number for the business providing the notice; toll-free numbers and addresses for the national credit reporting agencies; and toll-free numbers, addresses and web site addresses for the Federal Trade Commission and the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office along with a statement that individuals can learn about preventing identity theft from these sources. These new requirements build on top of existing mandates to (1) describe the incident, the type(s) of personal information unlawfully obtained and the actions being taken to prevent further unauthorized access; (2) provide a telephone number that the recipient may call for further information and assistance; and (3) advise affected individuals to remain vigilant by reviewing account statements and monitoring free credit reports.

Maine: For information about the recent amendment to Maine’s breach notification law, soon to become effective, see our prior blog post.

Since Missouri’s new law and these important updates need to be added to the smorgasbord of state data breach notification laws, it is probably a good time to revisit “The List” of such laws. Here it is!

Alaska (ALASKA STAT. § 45.48.010 et seq.)

Arizona (ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 44-7501(h))

Arkansas (ARK. CODE ANN. § 4-110-101 et seq.)

California (CAL. CIV. CODE § 1798.82)

Colorado (COLO. REV. STAT. § 6-1-716)

Connecticut (CONN. GEN. STAT. § 36a-701b)

Delaware (DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 6, § 12B-101)

District of Columbia (D.C. CODE § 28-3851)

Florida (FLA. STAT. § 817.5681)

Georgia (GA. CODE ANN. § 10-1-911)

Hawaii (HAW. REV. STAT. §§ 487N-1 et seq.)

Idaho (IDAHO CODE ANN. § 28-51-104 et seq.)

Illinois (815 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 530/5, /10)

Indiana (IND. CODE § 24-4.9)

Iowa (IOWA CODE § 715C.1 et seq.)

Kansas (KAN. STAT. ANN. § 50-7a01-02)

Louisiana (LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 51:3071 et seq.)

Maine (ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 10, §1346 et seq.; see also L.D. 970)

Maryland (MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW § 14-3501 et seq.)

Massachusetts (MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 93H, § 1 et seq.)

Michigan (MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 445.72)

Minnesota (MINN. STAT. § 325E.61)

Missouri (HB 62, tentatively codified at MO. REV. STAT. § 407.1500)

Montana (MONT. CODE ANN. § 30-14-1704)

Nebraska (NEB. REV. STAT. § 87-801 et seq.)

Nevada (NEV. REV. STAT. 603A.010 et seq.)

New Hampshire (N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 359-C:19 et seq.)

New Jersey (N.J. STAT. ANN. § 56:8-163)

New York (N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW § 899-aa)

North Carolina (N.C. GEN. STAT. § 75-65; see also SB 1017)

North Dakota (N.D. CENT. CODE § 51-30-01 et seq.)

Ohio (OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 1349.19)

Oklahoma (OKLA. STAT. § 74-3113.1)

Oregon (OR. REV. STAT. § 646A.600 et seq.)

Pennsylvania (73 PA. STAT. § 2303)

Puerto Rico (P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 10, § 4051)

Rhode Island (R.I. GEN. LAWS § 11-49.2-3)

South Carolina (S.C. CODE ANN. § 39-1-90)

Tennessee (TENN. CODE ANN. § 47-18-21)

Texas (TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 521.001 et seq.; see also HB 2004)

Utah (UTAH CODE ANN. § 13-44-101 et seq.)

Vermont (VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 9, § 2430 et seq.)

Virginia (Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-186.6)

U.S. Virgin Islands (V.I. CODE ANN. tit. 14, § 2209)

Washington (WASH. REV. CODE § 19.255.010)

West Virginia (W. Va. Code § 46A-2A-101 et seq.)

Wisconsin (WIS. STAT. § 134.98)

Wyoming (WYO. STAT. ANN. § 40-12-501 et seq.)

Because COPPA is not a safety statute, typically websites are allowed to post children’s personal information online if they get prior verifiable parental consent after full notice. That is, as long as the parent has been accurately and fully informed of the website’s data collection and disclosure practices and gives COPPA-compliant consent, COPPA is satisfied. By entering into an agreed judgment with the defendants, however, Texas has been able to impose conditions beyond those required by COPPA.

Texas and TheDollPalace.com defendants entered into an agreed final judgment and permanent injunction in March 2008. In addition to requiring the defendants to comply with COPPA and assessing $11,500 in civil penalties and fees, the judgment also imposes content restrictions.

Age Appropriate Content; "Reasonable Person" Standard. The agreed final judgment requires defendants "to ensure that all information displayed or collected on their Web sites is age appropriate based on the average users of those sites." They must review their sites at least semi-annually for this purpose, and delete "any information that a reasonable person would find inappropriate for the age of the average user at that time." The agreed judgment gives some examples, including "asking users with an average age of under eighteen about smoking habits" or "if they would like to meet older users, or what their Internet viewing habits are (including if they are able to access the Internet privately or if they access the Internet in a family room)"; or asking "users with an average age of under twenty-one about drinking habits."

Disclosure Limited. The agreed final judgment also enjoins the defendants from publicly displaying "any personal information solicited and collected by Defendants from children on any location on Defendants’ Web sites, including but not limited to user profiles." There is no exception, even for parental consent.

Other substantive changes from the standard consent decree employed by the FTC include (1) permitting the website to maintain information collected in violation of COPPA if they procure(d) COPPA compliant parental consent by April 1, 2008; (2) limiting defendants to collecting only the parent’s email address for the purpose of obtaining parental consent, rather than the broader COPPA allowance for obtaining the child’s or parent’s name and email address for that purpose; and (3) requiring that the privacy policy not simply recite compliance with security precautions, but also disclose "all methods and safeguards used by Defendants to protect and limit access to personal information by both internal Doll Place employees, agents, or affiliated entities, or third party individuals or entities."

Arizona (ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 44-7501(h))

Arkansas (ARK. CODE ANN. § 4-110-101 et seq.)

California (CAL. CIV. CODE § 1798.82)

Colorado (COLO. REV. STAT. § 6-1-716)

Connecticut (CONN. GEN. STAT. § 36a-701b)

Delaware (DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 6, § 12B-101)

District of Columbia (District of Columbia B16-810, D.C. Code § 28-3851)

Florida (FLA. STAT. § 817.5681)

Georgia (GA. CODE ANN. § 10-1-911)

Hawaii (Hawaii Revised Stat. §§ 487N-1 et seq.)

Idaho (IDAHO CODE ANN. § 28-51-104 et seq.)

Illinois (815 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 530/5, /10)

Indiana (IND. CODE § 24-4.9)

Iowa (SF 2308)

Kansas (KAN. STAT. ANN. §§ 50-7a01-02)

Louisiana (LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 51:3071 et seq.)

Maine (ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 10, §1346 et seq.)

Maryland (H.B. 208 and S.B. 194)

Massachusetts (Massachusetts General Laws Ann. 93H §§ 1 et seq.)

Michigan (Michigan Compiled Laws Ann. 445.72)

Minnesota (MINN. STAT. § 325E.61)

Montana (MONT. CODE ANN. § 30-14-1704)

Nebraska (NEB. REV. STAT. § 87-801 et seq.)

Nevada (NEV. REV. STAT. 603A.010 et seq.)

New Hampshire (N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 359-C:19 et seq.)

New Jersey (N.J. STAT. ANN. § 56:8-163)

New York (N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW § 899-aa)

North Carolina (N.C. GEN. STAT.§ 75-60 et seq.)

North Dakota (N.D. CENT. CODE § 51-30-01 et seq.)

Ohio (OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 1349.19)

Oklahoma (Okla. Stat. § 74-3113.1)

Oregon (S.B. 583)

Pennsylvania (73 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 2303)

Puerto Rico (Law 111 and Regulation 7207)

Rhode Island (R.I. GEN. LAWS § 11-49.2-3))

South Carolina S.B. 453

Tennessee (TENN. CODE ANN. § 47-18-21)

Texas (TEX. BUS. & COMM. CODE ANN. § 48.001 et seq.)

Utah (UTAH CODE ANN. § 13-44-101 et seq.)

Vermont (VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 9, § 2430 et seq.)

Virginia S.B. 307

Washington (WASH. REV. CODE § 19.255.010)

West Virginia S.B. 340

Wisconsin (WIS. STAT. § 895.507)

Wyoming (W.S. 40-12-501 through 40-12-509)

Minnesota’s New Law

The Minnesota law, H.F. 1758, amends Minnesota’s data breach notification law and contains security and liability components. The security requirements take effect August 1, 2007 and apply to any “person or entity conducting business in Minnesota” that accepts credit cards, debit cards, stored value cards or similar cards “issued by a financial institution.” Such companies are prohibited from retaining the following card data after authorization of a transaction:

• “the full contents of a track of magnetic stripe data” (which encompasses the “card verification value” or CVV – a unique authentication code embedded on the magnetic stripe);
•  the three to four digit security code on the back of the card by the signature block (also known as CVV2); and
• any PIN verification code number. If a debit card with PIN is used, a company is prohibited from retaining the data more than 48 hours after authorization of the transaction. 

The liability provision of H.F. 1758 applies to data breaches occurring after August 1, 2008. It requires companies to reimburse card-issuing financial institution for the “costs of reasonable actions” to both protect its cardholders’ information and to continue to provide services to its cardholders after a breach. The reimbursement would cover costs related to providing cardholders with notification of the breach, cancellation and reissuance of cards, closing or reopening of accounts and stop payments, and cardholder refunds for unauthorized transactions charged to their accounts. A financial institution may also bring an action to recover for the costs of damages it pays to cardholders resulting from a breach.         

The Five Pending Bills

The April 27, 2007 blog entry posted here discussed in detail California’s A.B. 779 as introduced. Since that posting, A.B. 779 has been amended in various California Assembly Committees and now resides with the Appropriations Committee. The amended bill extended the scope of the bill beyond just retailers to all persons or businesses conducting business in California that own or license computerized data containing personal information. The 90-day record destruction requirement in the original bill has been deleted, but the amended bill now has a host of other restrictions on storing payment card data. Among its requirements, the bill requires:

• account numbers retained by businesses be “indecipherable” to unauthorized persons;
• that payment related data sent across a network be encrypted;
• that companies have role-based restrictions for employee access to such data; and
• the bill also adds a provision that is broader than Minnesota’s financial institution reimbursement provision, requiring vendors that maintain, but do not own or license breached personal information, to reimburse data owners and licensees for “reasonable and actual costs” of providing data breach notification.                   

In the Texas legislature, the House passed H.B. 3222, which would require companies that accept, process or maintain credit card, debit card and other financial institution-issued cards to follow the Payment Card Industry’s Data Security Standard (“PCI DSS”). The PCI DSS are extensive industry security standards designed to prevent identity theft that the major credit card issuers impose on merchants that store, process or transmit cardholder data. While H.B. 3222 excludes financial institutions from the security standards, it empowers them, subject to certain conditions, with a right of action for actual damages against other companies they believe have violated the provision.