notification

Subscribe to notification via RSS

On May 8th, Vermont became the most recent state to amend its security breach notification law. Among the many changes, companies that are affected by a data breach are now required to notify the Attorney General of Vermont within 45 days after the discovery or notification of the breach.
…

Did you know there are breach notification obligations in all 50 states (effective 9/2012), even though only 46 states have adopted them?  How could that be, you ask?  Because Texas said so.  (Does that surprise you?)

Texas recently amended its breach notification law so that its consumer notification obligations apply not only to residents of Texas, but to any individual whose sensitive personal information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person.  Texas’s amended law (H.B. 300) specifically requires notification of data breaches to residents of states that have not enacted their own law requiring such notification (that is, Alabama, Kentucky, New Mexico and South Dakota). 

On July 5, 2011, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller announced a settlement with health insurer WellPoint, Inc. The settlement resolves allegations that the company failed to promptly notify the Attorney General’s office of a data breach as is required by the Indiana Disclosure of Security Breach Act. As part of the settlement, WellPoint must pay a fine of $100,000, provide certain identity-theft-prevention assistance to consumers affected by the breach, and admit that it failed to comply with the law by not notifying Zoeller’s office “without unreasonable delay.”
…

This past week, the Ponemon Institute announced their publication of the results of their fifth annual study on the costs of data breaches for U.S.-based companies. The study was sponsored by the PGP Corporation. A similar report for U.K.-based companies was also released. This year’s report, entitled 2009 Annual Study: Cost of a Data Breach, displays the results of the Ponemon Institute’s research of data breach incidents occurring in 2009.
Overall, as with previous years, the study found that U.S. organizations continue to experience increased costs associated with the data breaches they experience.
…

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.
…

Where the only “damages” alleged following a data security breach are the costs of credit monitoring, a plaintiff has no case, so ruled the Seventh Circuit on August 23, 2007. The decision dealt another blow to so-called “identity exposure” plaintiffs seeking to recover damages stemming from the unauthorized disclosure of their personal information, as the Seventh Circuit’s ruling joined the unanimous line of lower court decisions denying recovery in the absence of actual, present harm.

In Pisciotta v. Old National Bancorp, — F.3d –, 2007 WL 2389770 (7th Cir. Aug. 23, 2007), the court ruled that “Indiana law would not recognize the costs of credit monitoring that the plaintiffs seek to recover in this case as compensable damages.” Id. at *6. In doing so, the Seventh Circuit joins a chorus of federal district courts that uniformly reject such costs as a form of cognizable injury sufficient to support legal claims for damages.