Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On November 6, 2024, a Texas state district court jury found that a large e-discovery vendor violated Title 7, Chapter 33 of the Texas Penal Code, which provides that accessing a computer without its owner’s permission is a Class B misdemeanor. This case highlights the importance for e-discovery vendors of considering data privacy and security requirements in the course of discovery proceedings.

On November 5, 2021, the Federal Trade Commission suggested two preventative steps small businesses can take to protect against ransomware risks:

On November 8, 2021, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law A.430/S.2628 (the “Act”), which requires private employers with a place of business in New York State to provide their employees prior written notice, upon hiring, of any electronic monitoring, as defined in the Act, to which the employees will be subjected by the employer.

As reported on the Hunton Retail Law Blog, on April 26, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal on Article III standing grounds of a data breach class action predicated on an alleged increased risk of identity theft. McMorris v. Carlos Lopez & Assocs., LLC, No. 19-4310, 2021 WL 1603808 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2021). Notably, the district court that dismissed the action raised the issue of standing sua sponte in advance of a scheduled class settlement fairness hearing.

On April 13, 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) executed a court-authorized removal of malicious web shells from hundreds of vulnerable computers in the U.S.

On March 3, 2020, the New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) announced it had entered into a settlement with Residential Mortgage Services, Inc. (“RMS”) related to allegations that RMS violated the NYDFS Cybersecurity Regulation in connection with a 2019 data breach.

The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) has issued a Monetary Penalty Notice to pensions release provider Grove Pensions Solutions Ltd (“Grove”), fining it £40,000 after the company used contact details collected by a third party for its direct marketing campaign. Grove used a specialist third-party marketing agency to send emails on its behalf to mailing lists, negligently failing to obtain valid consent from individuals who received the marketing emails. Despite seeking external advice (including legal advice), the ICO decided that Grove should have known of the risk that its conduct would breach rules on direct marketing, particularly given recent widespread publicity of this issue in the UK. The fine was imposed under the Data Protection Act 1998.

The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) has fined Vote Leave Limited (the UK’s official Brexit campaign) £40,000 for sending almost 200,000 unsolicited texts promoting the aims of the campaign. In an unrelated action, the ICO has carried out searches of a business believed to have been responsible for initiating nuisance telephone calls. The ICO has highlighted nuisance calls, spam texts and unsolicited direct marketing as areas of “significant public concern,” and is increasingly imposing sanctions on businesses that infringe the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 (“PEC Regulations”), which prohibit these practices. In its view, the monetary penalty imposed on Vote Leave should act as a “deterrent against non-compliance, on the part of all persons running businesses currently engaging in these practices.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) recently announced the publication of “Health Industry Cybersecurity Practices: Managing Threats and Protecting Patients” (the “Cybersecurity Practices”). The Cybersecurity Practices were developed by the Healthcare & Public Health Sector Coordinating Councils Public Private Partnership, a group comprised of over 150 cybersecurity and healthcare experts from government and private industry.

Recently, the Sixth Circuit rejected Travelers Casualty & Surety Company’s request for reconsideration of the court’s July 13, 2018, decision confirming that the insured’s transfer of more than $800,000 to a fraudster after receipt of spoofed emails was a “direct” loss that was “directly caused by” the use of a computer under the terms of American Tooling Company’s ("ATC's") crime policy. In doing so, the court likewise confirmed that intervening steps by the insured, such as following the directions contained in the bogus emails, did not break the causal chain ...

As reported on Hunton's Insurance Recovery blog, the Second Circuit has rejected Chubb subsidiary Federal Ins. Co.’s request for reconsideration of the court’s July 6, 2018, decision, confirming that the insurer must cover Medidata’s $4.8 million loss under its computer fraud insurance policy. In July, the court determined that the loss resulted directly from the fraudulent emails. The court again rejected the insurer’s argument that the fraudster did not directly access Medidata’s computer systems. But the court again rejected that argument, finding that access indeed occurred when the “spoofing” code in emails sent to Medidata employees ended up in Medidata’s computer system.

On March 3, 2017, the FTC announced the results of a study about online businesses’ use of proper email authentication technology to prevent phishing attacks. The study’s sample included 569 large online businesses with strong ties to the U.S. The FTC found that 86 percent of those businesses use Sender Policy Framework—an email authentication technology that enables Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) to determine whether an email is from a legitimate source (e.g., whether an email that claims to be from a business’s domain in fact came from the business).

On February 6, 2017, the House of Representatives suspended its rules and passed by voice vote H.R 387, the Email Privacy Act. As we previously reported, the Email Privacy Act amends the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”) of 1986. In particular, the legislation would require government entities to obtain a warrant, based on probable cause, before accessing the content of any emails or electronic communications stored with third-party service providers, regardless of how long the communications have been held in electronic storage by such providers.

On January 9, 2017, Representatives Kevin Yoder (R-KS) and Jared Polis (D-CO) reintroduced the Email Privacy Act, which would amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”) of 1986. In particular, the legislation would require government entities to obtain a warrant, based on probable cause, before accessing the content of any emails or electronic communications stored with third-party service providers, regardless of how long the communications have been held in electronic storage by such providers. Although ECPA currently requires law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant to search the contents of electronic communications held by service providers that are less than 180 days old, communications that are more than 180 days old can be obtained with a subpoena.

On December 27, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced charges against three Chinese traders who allegedly made almost $3 million in illegal profits by fraudulently trading on nonpublic information that had been hacked from two New York-based law firms. This is the first action in which the SEC has brought charges in connection with an incident involving hacking into a law firm’s computer network.

On October 18, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in Apache Corp. v. Great American Ins. Co., No 15-20499 (5th Cir. Oct. 18, 2016), that a crime protection insurance policy does not cover loss resulting from a fraudulent email directing funds to be sent electronically to the imposter’s bank account because the scheme did not constitute “computer fraud” under the policy.

This post has been updated. 

On July 14, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) cannot be compelled to turn over customer emails stored abroad to U.S. law enforcement authorities.

On October 23, 2015, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, in large part, upheld Target’s assertion of the attorney-client privilege and work-product protections for information associated with a privileged, internal investigation of Target’s 2013 data breach.

On September 11, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) announced that Lyft Inc. (“Lyft”) and First National Bank Corporation (“FNB”) violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by forcing their users to consent to receive automated text messages as a condition of using their services. The FCC warned that these violations could result in fines if they continue.

On April 8, 2015, a New York Assemblyman introduced the Data Security Act in the New York State Assembly that would require New York businesses to implement and maintain information security safeguards. The requirements would apply to “private information,” which is defined as either:

• personal information consisting of any information in combination with one or more of the following data elements, when either the personal information or the data element is not encrypted: Social Security number; driver’s license number or non-driver identification card number; financial account or credit or debit card number in combination with any required security code or password; or biometric information;
• a user name or email address in combination with a password or security question and answer that would permit access to an online account; or
• unsecured protected health information (as that term is defined in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Privacy Rule).

In December 2014, we reported that various technology companies, academics and trade associations filed amicus briefs in support of Microsoft’s attempts to resist a U.S. government search warrant seeking to compel it to disclose the contents of customer emails that are stored on servers in Ireland. On December 23, 2014, the Irish government also filed an amicus brief in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

On December 15, 2014, Microsoft reported the filing of 10 amicus briefs in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals signed by 28 leading technology and media companies, 35 leading computer scientists, and 23 trade associations and advocacy organizations, in support of Microsoft’s litigation to resist a U.S. Government’s search warrant purporting to compel the production of Microsoft customer emails that are stored in Ireland. In opposing the Government’s assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction in this case, Microsoft and its supporters have argued that their stance seeks to promote privacy and trust in cross-border commerce and advance a “broad policy issue” that is “fundamental to the future of global technology.”

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog:

In Purple Communications, Inc., a divided National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) held that employees have the right to use their employers’ email systems for statutorily protected communications, including self-organization and other terms and conditions of employment, during non-working time. In making this determination, the NLRB reversed its divided 2007 decision in Register Guard, which held that employees have no statutory right to use their employer’s email systems for Section 7 purposes.

On May 1, 2014, the White House released a report examining how Big Data is affecting government, society and commerce. In addition to questioning longstanding tenets of privacy legislation, such as notice and consent, the report recommends (1) passing national data breach legislation, (2) revising the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”), and (3) advancing the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.

On June 5, 2013, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied an employer’s motion to dismiss, holding that the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) can apply when an employer reads a former employee’s personal emails on a company-issued mobile device that was returned when the employment relationship terminated. The defendants, Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) and the manager who allegedly read the plaintiff’s emails, argued that the SCA applies only to computer hacking scenarios, and that the plaintiff authorized the reading of her personal emails. The court rejected both of the arguments, finding:

On June 28, 2013, the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (“FDPIC”) issued its 20th annual Report of Activities (the “Report”), highlighting the FDPIC’s main activities during the period from April 2012 to March 2013. The Report is available in French and in German, and the FDPIC also has prepared a summary of the Report in English.

Two recently-published German court decisions have clarified German employee data protection law. The decisions validate the independence of works councils in determining how to comply with data protection law and clarify when unused employee email accounts can be deleted.

Adam Kardash from Heenan Blaikie LLP in Canada reports that Industry Canada and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) have released draft regulations for Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (“CASL”).  CASL imposes a consent-based anti-spam regime that restricts organizations’ ability to send commercial electronic messages.  Industry Canada and the CRTC are charged with the task of implementing regulations under CASL.

On April 5, 2011, Lisa Sotto, partner and head of the Privacy and Data Security practice at Hunton & Williams LLP, discussed the Epsilon email breach in an interview with Tracy Kitten of Information Security Media Group.  The interview covered issues such as data protection requirements for sensitive consumer data, steps companies should take to protect data and lessons to be learned from the breach.  Download the podcast now.

On April 12, 2011, U.S. Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011 (the “Act”) to “establish a regulatory framework for the comprehensive protection of personal data for individuals under the aegis of the Federal Trade Commission.”  The bill applies broadly to entities that collect, use, transfer or store the “covered information” of more than 5,000 individuals over a consecutive 12-month period.  Certain provisions of the bill would direct the FTC to initiate rulemaking proceedings within specified timeframes, but the bill also imposes requirements directly on covered entities.

On April 7, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced a settlement involving three former brokerage firm executives charged with “failing to protect confidential information about their customers.”  According to the announcement, “this is the first time that the SEC has assessed financial penalties against individuals charged solely with violations of Regulation S-P.”  Regulation S-P mandates that financial firms safeguard their customers’ confidential information and prevent its release to unaffiliated third parties without authorization.

On March 30, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Google agreed to settle charges that it used deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy promises to consumers when it launched its social network, Google Buzz, in 2010.  According to the FTC’s complaint (main document, exhibits), Google led Gmail users to believe that they could choose whether or not they wanted to join Google Buzz.  The options for declining or leaving Google Buzz, however, were ineffective.  For those who joined Google Buzz, the controls for limiting the sharing of their personal information were difficult to locate and confusing.  Furthermore, the FTC charged that Google violated its privacy policies by using information provided for Gmail for another purpose – social networking – without obtaining consumers’ permission in advance.  Finally, the FTC alleged that Google misrepresented that it was treating personal information from the European Union in accordance with the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor framework because it failed to give consumers notice and choice before using their information for a different purpose from that for which it was collected.

Reporting from Israel, legal consultant Dr. Omer Tene writes:

In a sweeping, 91-page decision issued last week, the Israeli National Labor Court severely restricted employers’ ability to monitor employee emails.  In its opinion, the Court made strong statements concerning the suspect nature of employee consent and mandated the implementation of principles of legitimacy, transparency, proportionality, purpose limitation, access, accuracy, confidentiality and security.  The Court stated that, given the constitutional status of the right to privacy, exemptions to the Privacy Protection Act, 1981, must be interpreted narrowly.

On May 25, 2010, two privacy-related bills were introduced in the Parliament of Canada: the Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act (“FISA” or Bill C-28) and the Safeguarding Canadians’ Personal Information Act (Bill C-29) amending the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”).

Bill C-29 is the long-awaited government response to the five-year mandatory review of PIPEDA.  The centerpiece of the bill is a new disclosure provision for security breaches related to personal information.  Key elements in the security breach notification proposal include:

• Any “material breach of security safeguards involving personal information” would have to be reported to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
• A determination of whether the breach is “material” would be made by the entity, based on the sensitivity of the information, the number of individuals affected and whether there is a systemic problem.
• Notification would have to be made “as soon as feasible” individuals affected by the breach “if it is reasonable in the circumstances to believe that the breach creates a real risk of significant harm to the individual.”
• A determination of whether there is a “real risk” would be made by the entity, based on the sensitivity of the information and the probability that the personal information has been, is being or will be misused.

On March 30, 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled for the former employee in Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc. on the employee’s claim that state common privacy law protected certain of her emails from review by the employer.

On February 19, 2010, the Court of Appeals of Versailles (the “Court”) upheld the unlimited seizure and review of a company’s emails by several agents of the French Competition Authority (Autorité de la Concurrence).  The agents had been authorized by a lower court judge to inspect the emails pursuant to an investigation into an alleged abuse of dominant position in the pharmaceutical market.

On March 2, 2010, the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the mass storage of telephone and Internet data for law enforcement purposes is unlawful in its current form.

Since 2008, the challenged law has required telecom companies to retain data from telephone, email and Internet traffic, as well as mobile phone location data, for six months.  This information may be retrieved for law enforcement and safety purposes.  Constitutional claims were brought before the Court by nearly 35,000 citizens, representing the largest mass claim proceeding in German history. 

On November 3, 2009, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (OLG Düsseldorf, Az. I-20 U 137/09) ruled on the duty to verify consent for email marketing with respect to purchased email addresses. According to the Court, a company that purchases email addresses for marketing purposes must verify customer consent itself – the company cannot rely on a data broker’s statement that it obtained the necessary consents.

This decision came in an interim injunction proceeding to cease unsolicited email marketing. The Court ruled in favor of the claimant, finding that the company ...

On Friday, October 23, 2009, the German Railways Operator Deutsche Bahn AG announced that they would pay a fine of over €1.1 million that was imposed on October 16, 2009 by the Berlin data protection authority.  This fine is the highest ever imposed by a German data protection authority.  The imposition of this fine follows a major data protection scandal that reportedly broke out within the company.  From 2002 to 2005, Deutsche Bahn had screened a large quantity of employee data and compared it to supplier data in an effort to combat corruption, but without specific suspicions related to ...

On December 1, 2008, a strict anti-spam law came into effect in Israel.  The legislation, enacted as an amendment to the country’s Communications Law, prohibits the delivery of advertisements using mobile text messaging, email, fax or automatic dialing systems without first obtaining the recipient’s explicit written consent.  The law contains several exceptions to the prior consent requirement.  For example, advertisers may reach out to businesses to inquire whether they wish to receive marketing communications.  Advertisers also may send unsolicited marketing ...