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 March 20, 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that will prohibit data brokers from transferring U.S. residents’ sensitive personal data to foreign adversaries, including China and Russia. The House bill HR 7520 (the “Bill”), also known as the Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024, marks a significant development in executive and legislative action related to foreign access to U.S. data. The Bill follows a similarly groundbreaking Executive Order and Department of Justice Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued at the end of February that will establish strict protective measures against data exploitation by countries considered national security threats for U.S. sensitive personal data and U.S. government-related data. The Bill also comes after the House overwhelmingly passed HR 7521, (the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act) resulting from concerns that the Chinese government would compel TikTok (or other foreign adversary-controlled apps) to turn over U.S. data. HR 7521 would effectively require TikTok to divest from parent company ByteDance in order to avoid a ban in the U.S.

On February 1, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed settlement with Blackbaud Inc. (“Blackbaud”) in connection with alleged security failures that resulted in a breach of the company’s network and access to the personal data of millions of consumers. As part of the settlement, Blackbaud will be required to comply with a variety of obligations, including deleting personal data that the company does not have a need to retain.

On March 27, 2023, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced that a New York-based law firm (Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach LLP) had agreed to pay $200,000 in penalties and enhance its cybersecurity practices to settle charges stemming from a 2021 data breach. 

On March 15, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed settlement with custom merchandise platform CafePress in connection with the company’s alleged failure to implement reasonable security measures, and its alleged attempt to cover up a 2019 data breach. The proposed settlement would require CafePress to implement a comprehensive data security program and pay $500,000 in redress to affected individuals.

On January 6, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission reached a $1.5 million settlement with loan application company ITMedia Solutions LLC (“ITMedia”) over alleged violations of the FTC Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). The FTC alleged that ITMedia deceptively acquired and indiscriminately shared consumers’ sensitive personal information under the guise of connecting them with lenders.

On December 15, 2021, the New Jersey Acting Attorney General Andrew J. Bruck announced that its Division of Consumer Affairs had reached a $425,000 settlement with New Jersey-based providers of cancer care, Regional Cancer Care Associates LLC, RCCA MSO LLC and RCCA MD LLC (collectively, “RCCA”), over alleged failures to adequately safeguard patient data.

On October 12, 2021, New Jersey Acting Attorney General Andrew J. Bruck and the Division of Consumer Affairs announced a settlement with Diamond Institute for Infertility and Menopause, LLC, over a data breach that compromised the personal information of 14,663 patients, including 11,071 New Jersey residents. The Division of Consumer Affairs alleged that the fertility clinic violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’s (“HIPAA”) Privacy and Security Rules by removing protected health information (“PHI”) safeguards.

On June 14, 2021, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed HB 3746, a bill amending Texas’s data breach notification law. Texas’s breach notification law requires notice to affected residents in the event of a data breach affecting certain sensitive personal data, including Social Security numbers, driver’s license or other government-issued ID numbers, account numbers or payment card numbers in combination with any required security code, access code or password, or certain information about an individual’s health or medical condition or treatment. The law also requires businesses to notify the Texas Attorney General of any data breach affecting at least 250 Texas residents.

On June 15, 2021, the SEC announced it settled charges against real estate services company First American Financial Corporation (“First American”) for alleged violation of Rule 13a-15(a) of the Exchange Act. The SEC charged First American with failure to maintain disclosure controls and procedures designed to ensure that all available, relevant information concerning a software vulnerability that led to a cybersecurity incident was filed with the Commission.

On September 30, 2020, Anthem, Inc. (“Anthem”) entered into an assurance of voluntary compliance (the “Agreement”) with the attorneys general of 42 states and the District of Columbia to settle claims under state and federal law relating to Anthem’s 2015 data breach (the “Breach”).

On September 21, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) announced a $1.5 million settlement with Athens Orthopedic Clinic PA (“Athens Orthopedic”) for alleged violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) Privacy and Security Rules.

On May 4, 2020, Californians for Consumer Privacy (the group behind the ballot initiative that inspired the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”)) announced that it had collected over 900,000 signatures to qualify the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) for the November 2020 ballot. The group announced that it was taking steps to submit the CPRA for inclusion on the November ballot in counties across California. The CPRA would amend the CCPA to create new and additional privacy rights and obligations in California, including the following:

On August 2, 2019, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu signed into law SB 194 (the “Bill”), which requires insurers licensed in the state (“licensees”) to put in place data security programs and report cybersecurity events. Although the Bill takes effect January 1, 2020, licensees have one year from the effective date to implement relevant cybersecurity requirements and two years from the effective date to ensure that their third-party vendors also implement appropriate safeguards to protect and secure the information systems and nonpublic information accessible to, or held by, the third-party service providers.

On July 25, 2019, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law Senate Bill S5575B (the “Bill”), an amendment to New York’s breach notification law (the “Act”). The Bill expands the Act’s definition of “breach of the security of the system” and the types of information (i.e., “private information”) covered by the Act, and makes certain changes to the Act’s requirements for breach notification.

On July 11, 2019, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced that his office had entered into a consent decree and $10 million settlement with Premera Blue Cross (“Premera”) that stems from a 2014-2015 breach that affected more than 11 million individuals. The settlement, which includes a payment of roughly $5.4 million to Washington state and $4.6 million to a coalition of 29 other state Attorneys General (the “Multistate AGs”), is one of the largest ever for a breach involving protected health information (“PHI”) and comes just one month after another notable HIPAA settlement involving a similar coalition of state AGs.

On July 2, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission announced a case involving the operator of an online rewards website who allegedly failed to take reasonable steps to secure consumers’ personal data.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich recently announced a settlement with healthcare software provider Medical Informatics Engineering Inc. (“MIE”) and its wholly owned subsidiary NoMoreClipboard, LLC. The settlement resolves a multistate litigation arising out of a May 2015 data breach in which hackers infiltrated WebChart, a web application run by MIE, and stole the electronic Protected Health Information (“ePHI”) of over 3.9 million individuals. Arizona and 15 other states (the “Multistate AGs”) filed the suit in December 2018, asserting claims under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (“HIPAA”) as well as various applicable state data protection laws. Notably, the lawsuit was the first-ever multistate litigation alleging claims under HIPAA.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, on May 7, 2019, Washington State Governor Jay Inslee signed a bill (HB 1071) amending Washington’s data breach notification law. The new requirements include the following:

• Expanded Definition of Personal Information. HB 1071 expands the definition of “personal information.” Washington’s breach notification law previously defined personal information as an individual’s name in combination with the individual’s Social Security number, state identification card number, or financial account or credit or debit card number in combination with any required security code, access code or password that would permit access to an individual’s financial account. HB 1071 adds the following data elements to the definition, when compromised in combination with an individual’s name:
  • full date of birth;
  • private key that is unique to an individual and that is used to authenticate or sign an electronic record;
  • student, military or passport identification number;
  • health insurance policy number or health insurance identification number;
  • any information about a consumer’s medical history or mental or physical condition or about a health care professional’s medical diagnosis or treatment of the consumer; or
  • biometric data generated by automatic measurements of an individual’s biological characteristics such as a fingerprint, voiceprint, eye retinas, irises or other unique biological patterns or characteristics that is used to identify a specific individual.

On April 22, 2019, Washington state legislators voted to send HB 1071 (the “Bill”) to Governor Jay Inslee for consideration. The Bill was requested by Attorney General Ferguson and would strengthen Washington’s data breach law. The request to amend the current law followed Attorney General Ferguson’s third annual Data Breach Report, which found that data breaches affected nearly 3.4 million Washingtonians between July 2017 and July 2018.

On January 10, 2019, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed legislation amending the state’s data breach law. The amendments take effect on April 11, 2019.

On November 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled that a putative class action filed against UPMC (d/b/a The University of Pittsburg Medical Center) should not have been dismissed.

Effective October 1, 2018, Connecticut law requires organizations that experience a security breach affecting Connecticut residents’ Social Security numbers (“SSNs”) to provide 24 months of credit monitoring to affected individuals. Previously, Connecticut law required entities to provide 12 months of credit monitoring for breaches affecting SSNs.

On August 15, 2018, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh signed an order granting final approval of the record $115 million class action settlement agreed to by Anthem Inc. in June 2017. As previously reported, Judge Koh signed an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement in August 2017.

On June 28, 2018, the Governor of California signed AB 375, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “Act”). The Act introduces key privacy requirements for businesses, and was passed quickly by California lawmakers in an effort to remove a ballot initiative of the same name from the November 6, 2018, statewide ballot. We previously reported on the relevant ballot initiative. The Act will take effect January 1, 2020.

On November 6, 2018, California voters will consider a ballot initiative called the California Consumer Privacy Act (“the Act”). The Act is designed to give California residents (i.e., “consumers”) the right to request from businesses (see “Applicability” below) the categories of personal information the business has sold or disclosed to third parties, with some exceptions. The Act would also require businesses to disclose in their privacy notices consumers’ rights under the Act, as well as how consumers may opt out of the sale of their personal information if the business sells consumer personal information.

Recently, Colorado’s governor signed into law House Bill 18-1128 “concerning strengthening protections for consumer data privacy” (the “Bill”), which takes effect September 1, 2018. Among other provisions, the Bill (1) amends the state’s data breach notification law to require notice to affected Colorado residents and the Colorado Attorney General within 30 days of determining that a security breach occurred, imposes content requirements for the notice to residents and expands the definition of personal information; (2) establishes data security requirements applicable to businesses and their third-party service providers; and (3) amends the state’s law regarding disposal of personal identifying information.

On April 11, 2018, Arizona amended its data breach notification law (the “amended law”). The amended law will require persons, companies and government agencies doing business in the state to notify affected individuals within 45 days of determining that a breach has resulted in or is reasonably likely to result in substantial economic loss to affected individuals. The old law only required notification “in the most expedient manner possible and without unreasonable delay.” The amended law also broadens the definition of personal information and requires regulatory notice and notice to the consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”) under certain circumstances.

As reported in BNA Privacy Law Watch, on March 21, 2018, South Dakota enacted the state’s first data breach notification law. The law will take effect on July 1, 2018, and includes several key provisions:

As reported in BNA Privacy Law Watch, on December 6, 2017, health care provider 21st Century Oncology agreed to pay $2.3 million to settle charges by the Department of Health and Human Services' (“HHS”) Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) that its security practices led to a data breach involving patient information. The settlement was made public in the company’s December 6, 2017, bankruptcy filing. The HHS charges stemmed from a 2015 data breach involving the compromise of Social Security numbers, medical diagnoses and health insurance information of at least 2.2 million ...

On November 8, 2017, the FTC announced a settlement with Georgia-based online tax preparation service, TaxSlayer, LLC (“TaxSlayer”), regarding allegations that the company violated federal rules on financial privacy and data security. According to the FTC’s complaint, malicious hackers were able to gain full access to nearly 9,000 TaxSlayer user accounts between October 2015 and December 2015. The hackers allegedly used the personal information contained in the users’ accounts, including contact information, Social Security numbers and financial information, to engage in tax identify theft and obtain tax refunds through filing fraudulent tax returns. The FTC charged TaxSlayer with violating the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s Safeguards Rule and Privacy Rule. 

On September 5, 2017, the FTC announced that Lenovo, Inc. (“Lenovo”) agreed to settle charges that its preloaded software on some laptop computers compromised online security protections in order to deliver advertisements to consumers. The settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) is between Lenovo, the FTC and 32 State Attorneys General. 

On August 25, 2017, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh signed an order granting preliminary approval of the record class action settlement agreed to by Anthem Inc. this past June. The settlement arose out of a 2015 data breach that exposed the personal information of more than 78 million individuals, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers and health care ID numbers. The terms of the settlement include, among other things, the creation of a pool of funds to provide credit monitoring and reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs for customers, as well as up to $38 million in attorneys’ fees. Anthem will also be required to make certain changes to its data security systems and cybersecurity practices for at least three years.

As reported in BNA Privacy Law Watch, on August 17, 2017, Delaware amended its data breach notification law, effective April 14, 2018. The Delaware law previously required companies to give notice of a breach to affected Delaware residents “as soon as possible” after determining that, as a result of the breach, “misuse of information about a Delaware resident has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur.” The prior version of the law did not require regulator notification.

On August 1, 2017, a unanimous three-judge panel for the D.C. Circuit reversed the dismissal of a putative data breach class action against health insurer CareFirst, Attias v. CareFirst, Inc., No. 16-7108, slip op. (D.C. Cir. Aug. 1, 2017), finding the risk of future injury was not too speculative to establish injury in fact under Article III. 

On August 9, 2017, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. (“Nationwide”) agreed to a $5.5 million settlement with attorneys general from 32 states in connection with a 2012 data breach that exposed the personal information of over 1.2 million individuals. 

On July 27, 2017, Lisa Sotto, chair of Hunton & Williams LLP’s Global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice, appeared live on Washington, DC’s Fox TV to discuss the ID theft issue involving former Dallas Cowboys player Lucky Whitehead, and to warn against the risk of identity theft. Sotto cautions that identity thieves who are determined and looking to do harm “will find [personal data].” According to Sotto, consumers “leave footprints everywhere online.” To mitigate risk of identity theft, Sotto advises against freely providing a Social Security number, shredding ...

On July 5, 2017, the FTC announced that Blue Global Media, LLC (“Blue Global”) agreed to settle charges that it misled consumers into filling out loan applications and then sold those applications, including sensitive personal information contained therein, to other entities without verifying how consumers’ information would be used or whether it would remain secure. According to the FTC’s complaint, Blue Global claimed it would connect loan applicants to lenders from its network of over 100 lenders in an effort to offer applicants the best terms. In reality, Blue Global “sold very few of the loan applications to lenders; did not match applications based on loan rates or terms; and sold the loan applications to the first buyer willing to pay for them.” The FTC alleged that, contrary to Blue Global’s representations, the company provided consumers’ sensitive information—including SSN and bank account number—to buyers without consumers’ knowledge or consent. The FTC further alleged that, upon receiving complaints from consumers that their personal information was being misused, Blue Global failed to investigate or take action to prevent harm to consumers.

On June 23, 2017, Anthem Inc., the nation’s second largest health insurer, reached a record $115 million settlement in a class action lawsuit arising out of a 2015 data breach that exposed the personal information of more than 78 million people. Among other things, the settlement creates a pool of funds to provide credit monitoring and reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs for customers, as well as up to $38 million in attorneys’ fees.

Recently, the Colorado Division of Securities (the “Division”) published cybersecurity regulations for broker-dealers and investment advisers regulated by the Division. Colorado’s cybersecurity regulations follow similar regulations enacted in New York that apply to certain state-regulated financial institutions.

On March 21, 2017, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced that the New York Office of the Attorney General received over 1,300 data breach notifications in 2016, a 60 percent increase from 2015. The reported breaches led to the exposure of personal information of 1.6 million New York residents. According to the Attorney General’s report, 46 percent of the exposed personal information consisted of Social Security numbers, and 35 percent consisted of financial account information. Attorney General Schneiderman cited the updated New York State Department of ...

On March 17, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Upromise, Inc., (“Upromise”) agreed to pay $500,000 to settle allegations (the “Settlement”) that it violated the terms of a 2012 consent order (the “2012 Order”) that required Upromise to provide notice to consumers regarding its data collection and use practices, and obtain third-party audits.

On February 17, 2017, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey (“Horizon”) agreed to pay $1.1 million as part of a settlement with the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs (the “Division”) regarding allegations that Horizon did not adequately protect the privacy of nearly 690,000 policyholders.

On February 16, 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) entered into a resolution agreement with Memorial Healthcare System (“Memorial”) that emphasized the importance of audit controls in preventing breaches of protected health information (“PHI”). The $5.5 million settlement with Memorial is the fourth enforcement action taken by OCR in 2017, and matches the largest civil monetary ever imposed against a single covered entity.

On November 22, 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”)  announced a $650,000 settlement with University of Massachusetts Amherst (“UMass”), resulting from alleged violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Privacy and Security Rules. 

On November 14, 2016, Lincoln Financial Securities Corp. (“LFS”), a subsidiary of Lincoln Financial Group, entered into a settlement (the “Settlement”) with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), requiring LFS to pay a $650,000 fine and implement stronger cybersecurity protocols following a 2012 hack into its cloud-based server.

This post has been updated. 

On October 27, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) announced the adoption of rules that require broadband Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) to take steps to protect consumer privacy (the “Rules”). According to the FCC’s press release, the Rules are intended to “ensure broadband customers have meaningful choice, greater transparency and strong security protections for their personal information collected by ISPs.” 

On October 27, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) will vote on whether to finalize proposed rules (the "Proposed Rules”) concerning new privacy restrictions for Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”). The Proposed Rules, which revise previous versions introduced earlier this year, would require customers’ explicit (or “opt-in”) consent before an ISP can use or share a customer’s personal data, including web browsing and app usage history, geolocation data, children’s information, health information, financial information, email and other message contents and Social Security numbers.

On July 29, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced that it had issued an opinion and final order concluding that LabMD, Inc. (“LabMD”) violated the unfairness prong of Section 5 of the FTC Act by failing to maintain reasonable security practices to protect consumers’ sensitive personal information. The unanimous decision reverses a November 2015 administrative law judge’s initial decision that, as we previously reported, dismissed the FTC’s charges against LabMD for failing to show that LabMD’s allegedly unreasonable data security practices caused, or were likely to cause, substantial consumer injury.

On June 30, 2016, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) announced that it had settled potential HIPAA Security Rule violations with Catholic Health Care Services of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia (“CHCS”). This is the first enforcement action OCR has taken against a business associate since the HIPAA Omnibus Rule was enacted in 2013. The HIPAA Omnibus Rule made business associates directly liable for their violations of the HIPAA rules. The settlement with CHCS is also notable because it involved a breach that affected fewer than 500 individuals.

On February 16, 2016, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris released the California Data Breach Report 2012-2015 (the “Report”) which, among other things, provides (1) an overview of businesses’ responsibilities regarding protecting personal information and reporting data breaches and (2) a series of recommendations for businesses and state policy makers to follow to help safeguard personal information.

On November 17, 2015, two plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, improperly disclosed the Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers and birth dates of more than 6.1 million Georgia voters. The lawsuit alleges that the Secretary violated Georgia’s Personal Identity Protection Act by disclosing the voters’ personally identifiable information, failing to provide voters notice of the breach and failing to notify consumer reporting agencies.

On November 5, 2015, the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) entered into a Consent Decree with cable operator Cox Communications to settle allegations that the company failed to properly protect customer information when the company’s electronic data systems were breached in August 2014 by a hacker. The FCC alleged that Cox failed to properly protect the confidentiality of its customers’ proprietary network information (“CPNI”) and personally identifiable information, and failed to promptly notify law enforcement authorities of security breaches involving CPNI in violation of the Communications Act of 1934 and FCC’s rules.

On November 13, 2015, Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell dismissed the FTC’s complaint against LabMD Inc. (“LabMD”) for failing to show that LabMD’s allegedly unreasonable data security practices caused, or were likely to cause, substantial consumer injury. The law judge did not address LabMD’s claim that the FTC does not have jurisdiction to enforce data security standards under the unfairness prong of Section 5 of the FTC Act, and LabMD has reserved its jurisdictional challenge for an anticipated appeal to the federal court. The action is In the Matter of LabMD Inc., Docket No. 9357.

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Law Perspectives Blog:

On October 27, 2015, the Ninth Circuit held in EEOC v. McLane Co., Inc. that the EEOC has broad subpoena powers to obtain nationwide private personnel information, including Social Security numbers (“SSNs”), in connection with its investigation of a sex discrimination charge.

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).

On February 23, 2015, the Wyoming Senate approved a bill (S.F.36) that adds several data elements to the definition of “personal identifying information” in the state’s data breach notification statute. The amended definition will expand Wyoming’s breach notification law to cover certain online account access credentials, unique biometric data, health insurance information, medical information, birth and marriage certificates, certain shared secrets or security tokens used for authentication purposes, and individual taxpayer identification numbers. The Wyoming Senate also agreed with amendments proposed by the Wyoming House of Representatives to another bill (S.F.35) that adds content requirements to the notice that breached entities must send to affected Wyoming residents. Both bills are now headed to the Wyoming Governor Matt Mead for signing.

On November 21, 2014, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced that Boston hospital Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (“BIDMC”) has agreed to pay a total of $100,000 to settle charges related to a data breach that affected the personal and protected health information of nearly 4,000 patients and employees.

On September 30, 2014, California Governor Jerry Brown announced the recent signings of several bills that provide increased privacy protections to California residents. The newly-signed bills are aimed at protecting student privacy, increasing consumer protection in the wake of a data breach, and expanding the scope of California’s invasion of privacy and revenge porn laws. Unless otherwise noted, the laws will take effect on January 1, 2015.

On August 19, 2014, California state legislators made final amendments to a bill updating the state’s breach notification law. The amended bill, which passed the State Senate on August 21 and the Assembly on August 25, is now headed to California Governor Jerry Brown for signature. If signed, the scope of the existing law would extend to apply to entities that “maintain” personal information about California residents. Currently, only entities that “own” or “license” such personal information are required to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect the personal information from unauthorized access, destruction, modification or disclosure.

On July 1, 2014, Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed into law a bill that creates new safe destruction requirements for the disposal of business records containing consumer personal information. The new law requires commercial entities conducting business in Delaware to take reasonable steps to destroy their consumers’ “personal identifying information” prior to the disposal of electronic or paper records. The law will take effect on January 1, 2015.

On May 12, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it has approved final consent orders with two companies that marketed genetically customized nutrition supplements. In addition to charges that the companies’ claims regarding the effectiveness of their products were not sufficiently substantiated, the settlements also allege that the companies misrepresented their privacy and security practices. The two companies, Gene Link, Inc. (“Gene Link”) and foru™ International Corp. (“foru” – a former subsidiary of Gene Link), represented in their privacy policy that they had “taken every precaution to create a process that allows individuals to maintain the highest level of privacy” and that the companies’ third party service providers are “contractually obligated to maintain the confidentiality and security of the Personal Customer Information and are restricted from using such information in any way not expressly authorized” by the companies.

On April 10, 2014, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear signed into law a data breach notification statute requiring persons and entities conducting business in Kentucky to notify individuals whose personally identifiable information was compromised in certain circumstances. The law will take effect on July 14, 2014.

On September 5, 2013, Pew Research Center released a report detailing the results of a new survey that questioned 792 Internet and smartphone users in the United States about their desire for anonymity and issues they have faced regarding privacy and security online. The report indicates that although most Internet users may wish to be anonymous online, they don’t believe complete anonymity is possible.

On August 29, 2013, the FTC announced that it had filed a complaint against LabMD, Inc. (“LabMD”) for failing to protect consumers’ personal data. According to the complaint, LabMD, which performs various laboratory tests for consumers, exposed the personal information of more than 9,000 consumers on a peer-to-peer (“P2P”) file-sharing network. Specifically, a LabMD spreadsheet that was found on the P2P network contained names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, health insurance information and medical treatment codes. In another instance, identity thieves were able to obtain LabMD documents that contained the personal information of more than 500 consumers, including names, Social Security numbers and bank account information.

On April 19, 2013, the North Dakota legislature amended the state’s breach notification law (Section 51-30-01 of the North Dakota Century Code) to expand the definition of “personal information” to include “health insurance information” and “medical information.” Pursuant to the amended breach law, “health insurance information” is defined to mean an “individual’s health insurance policy number or subscriber identification number and any unique identifier used by a health insurer to identify the individual.” “Medical information” is defined to mean “any information regarding an individual’s medical history, mental or physical condition, or medical treatment or diagnosis by a health care professional.” The amendment also carves out an exemption for covered entities, business associates and subcontractors that are subject to the breach notification requirements of 45 C.F.R. 164, Subpart D.

Today, July 1, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission’s changes to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (the “Rule”) officially come into effect. On December 19, 2012, the FTC announced that it had published the amended Rule following two years of public comments and multiple reviews of various proposed changes.

On April 25, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission released an updated version of its frequently asked questions regarding the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (“COPPA”). The revised FAQs, entitled Complying with COPPA: Frequently Asked Questions (A Guide for Business and Parents and Small Entity Compliance Guide), provide general information on COPPA’s requirements and also include new guidance on the recent amendments to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (“COPPA Rule”).

As the number of security breach incidents and privacy violations continues to increase, so too has the volume of lawsuits—particularly class action lawsuits—seeking damages for actual and future harms resulting from unauthorized disclosures of personal information. Affected companies have looked to their traditional insurance coverage to defray costs associated with responding to these incidents and lawsuits, but standardized commercial general liability policies may not provide adequate coverage.

On January 28, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed settlement agreement with CBR Systems, Inc. (“CBR”), an operator of a cord blood bank, which collects personal information about consumers and physicians through its websites and in connection with the provision of its services, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, credit card numbers and health information.

On January 7, 2013, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced that several Massachusetts medical practices have agreed to a consent judgment and $140,000 payment to settle charges they improperly disposed of medical information. The defendants, which include several pathology practices and a firm that provided medical billing services to those practices, were accused of dumping hard copy medical records at the Georgetown Transfer Station, a waste management facility open to the public. The records allegedly contained the names, Social Security numbers and medical diagnoses of approximately 67,000 individuals. The illegal dumping allegations were publicized in a Boston Globe article after a photographer for the newspaper discovered medical records at the facility while he was disposing of his own trash.

On November 26, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) published guidance on the two methods for de-identifying protected health information (“PHI”) in accordance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule. The guidance, which was required by the Health Information Technology for Clinical and Economic Health (“HITECH”) Act, has been developed over several years by OCR in collaboration with healthcare entities and other industry experts and builds upon the discussions from a workshop on de-identification that took place in March 2010.

On October 26, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission finalized its settlement agreements with two businesses that allegedly exposed thousands of customers’ sensitive personal information by allowing peer-to-peer (“P2P”) file-sharing software to be installed on the companies’ computer systems. The approved settlements prohibit Georgia auto dealer Franklin’s Budget Car Sales, Inc. (“Franklin”) and Utah-based debt collector EPN, Inc. (“EPN”) from misrepresenting their privacy and information security practices and requires both businesses to establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program subject to biennial, independent, third-party audits for 20 years. The settlement with Franklin also bars the company from violating the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”) Safeguards Rule and Privacy Rule.

On November 7, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had settled charges against payday lending and check cashing companies alleged to have improperly disposed of consumers’ personal information. In its complaint, the FTC maintained that PLS Financial Services, Inc., and The Payday Loan Store of Illinois violated the FTC’s Disposal Rule as well as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s Privacy Rule and Safeguards Rule by disposing of documents that contained consumers’ Social Security numbers, bank account numbers and credit reports in unsecured dumpsters near the companies’ payday lending and check cashing retail stores. The FTC also alleged that the companies violated the FTC Act by misrepresenting that they would reasonably protect consumer information.

On October 22, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed settlement agreement with Compete, Inc. (“Compete”), an online market research company that collects clickstream data from consumers to generate and sell analytical reports about consumer behavior on the Internet.

On September 25, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had settled a case involving allegations of spying by software company DesignerWare, LLC (“DesignerWare”) and several rent-to-own companies that rent computers to consumers, such as Aaron’s, Inc., ColorTyme, Inc., and Premier Rental Purchase. The FTC collaborated with Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan in its investigation.

On June 7, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced settlement agreements with two businesses that allegedly exposed customers’ sensitive personal information by allowing peer-to-peer (“P2P”) file-sharing software to be installed on their company computers and networks.

In its complaint against Franklin’s Budget Car Sales (“Franklin”), a Georgia automobile dealership that also provides financing services to its customers, the FTC alleged that Franklin failed to implement reasonable security measures to protect the consumer personal information that Franklin routinely collects in connection with its business. The FTC claimed that personal information of approximately 95,000 customers, including names, Social Security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, and drivers’ license numbers were made available and disclosed by a P2P application installed on a computer that was connected to Franklin’s computer network. In addition to alleging violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act, the FTC also claimed that Franklin violated the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act (“GLB”). This is the first FTC case against an auto dealer involving GLB violations. The FTC stated in its complaint that Franklin failed to implement reasonable security policies and procedures in violation of the GLB Safeguards Rule, and also failed to send consumers annual privacy notices and to provide the required opt-out mechanisms in violation of the GLB Privacy Rule.

On May 24, 2012, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced that South Shore Hospital agreed to a consent judgment and $750,000 payment to settle a lawsuit stemming from a data breach that occurred in February 2010. At that time, South Shore Hospital shipped several boxes of unencrypted back-up tapes to a service provider in Texas to erase them. The tapes contained the personal and protected health information of approximately 800,000 individuals, including names, Social Security numbers, financial account numbers and medical diagnoses. Several of the boxes went missing and have yet to be recovered, though there is no evidence that the information on the missing tapes has been misused.

On March 13, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced that it had settled the first case related to the HITECH Act Breach Notification Rule. BlueCross Blue Shield of Tennessee (“BCBS Tennessee”) agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle potential HIPAA violations related to the October 2009 theft of 57 unencrypted hard drives containing protected health information (“PHI”) from a network data closet at a leased facility leased in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

On January 24, 2011, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen and Consumer Protection Commissioner William Rubenstein announced that they had reached an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (“AVC”) with Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (“MetLife”) in connection with an incident involving the disclosure of customer personal information on the Internet. In November 2009, a MetLife employee posted the personally identifiable information of current and former MetLife customers, including their Social Security numbers, on the Internet. Following the discovery of the posting, MetLife acted to mitigate possible harm by providing credit monitoring and identity theft insurance to the affected customers.

On January 19, 2012, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced a lawsuit against Accretive Health, Inc., (“Accretive”) for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and its implementing regulations, the Minnesota Health Records Act, Minnesota’s debt collection statutes and Minnesota’s consumer protection laws. The suit, which was filed in Federal District Court in Minnesota, alleges that Accretive failed to adequately safeguard patients’ protected health information (“PHI”). This failure contributed to a July 2011 information security breach when an Accretive employee left an unencrypted laptop containing information of approximately 23,500 patients in a rental car. The laptop was stolen and has not yet been recovered.

On December 12, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a decision that employees of Ceridian Corporation's (“Ceridian's") customers did not have standing to sue Ceridian after the payroll processing firm suffered a data breach.

On January 5, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed settlement with Upromise, Inc., a membership reward service that gives cash rebates for college savings accounts to members who purchase products and services from its partner merchants. The FTC alleged that the “Personalized Offers” feature on the Upromise TurboSaver Toolbar (1) collected far more information about users’ browsing behavior than was disclosed at the time of installation, and (2) contrary to representations in the company’s privacy notice, transmitted that information, which included data such as Social Security numbers and financial account numbers, in clear text.

On August 31, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law amendments to that state’s security breach notification statute.  The revisions establish new content requirements for breach notification letters to California residents, and mandate notification to the state Attorney General when a breach affects more than 500 Californians.  Senate Bill 24 was the third effort by State Senator Joe Simitian to build on the landmark California breach notification law he authored in 2002.  The two previous bills he proposed were passed by the California legislature, but vetoed by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

On July 29, 2011, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced a $7,500 settlement with Belmont Savings Bank following a May 2011 data breach involving the names, Social Security numbers and account numbers of more than 13,000 Massachusetts residents.  The bank has stated that it has no evidence of unauthorized access to or use of consumers’ personal information in connection with this breach.

On July 1, 2011, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) released a comprehensive handbook for health professionals (the “Guidance”).  The Guidance reiterates that health professionals (e.g., doctors, nurses, hospitals, research laboratories) have an obligation to comply with the French Data Protection Act when collecting and processing health data on patients.

On June 13, 2011, Representative Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) released a discussion draft of the Secure and Fortify Data Act (the “SAFE Data Act”), which is designed to “protect consumers by requiring reasonable security policies and procedures to protect data containing personal information, and to provide for nationwide notice in the event of a security breach.”  Representative Bono Mack is Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade.  In a press release, Representative Bono Mack remarked that “E-commerce is a vital and growing part of our economy.  We should take steps to embrace and protect it – and that starts with robust cyber security.”  She added that “consumers have a right to know when their personal information has been compromised, and companies and other organizations have an overriding responsibility to promptly alert them.”

On May 3, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had reached settlements with Ceridian Corporation and Lookout Services, Inc. after alleging both companies had misrepresented the extent of their data security practices and subsequently failed to safeguard their customers’ information.  According to the FTC’s press release, the settlements “are part of the FTC’s ongoing efforts to ensure that companies secure the sensitive consumer information they maintain.”

As part of an effort to increase penalties for violations of the country’s Personal Information Protection Act, officials in Japan plan to extend liability under that law to individual employees, according to recent reports in The Yomiuri Shimbun and The Japan Times.  Currently, a company that violates the law may be fined or ordered to take remedial steps, and the company head may be imprisoned.  The law revision would come as part of changes to the legal framework accompanying a proposed national identification number system ...

On April 13, 2011, Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) introduced the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2011 (the “Act”), which seeks to “protect and enhance consumer privacy” both online and offline by imposing certain notice and choice requirements with respect to the collection and use of personal information.

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 1, 2011, Epsilon Data Management, LLC (“Epsilon”), a leading marketing services provider based in Irving, Texas, issued a press release announcing that its clients’ customer data had been “exposed by an unauthorized entry into Epsilon’s email system” that took place on March 30, 2011.  In the press release, Epsilon indicated that the information acquired as a result of the incident was limited to email addresses and customer names.  Several major retailers, credit card issuers, financial institutions and other companies that use Epsilon as a service provider ...

In the past two months, lawmakers in three states have introduced legislation that would expand the scope of certain security breach notification requirements.

Virginia SB 1041

On January 11, 2011, Virginia lawmakers introduced SB 1041, which would amend the state’s health breach notification statute to impose notification requirements on businesses, individuals and other private entities, in the event unencrypted or unredacted computerized medical information they own or license is reasonably believed to have been accessed and acquired by an unauthorized person.  The law currently applies only to organizations, corporations and agencies supported by public funds.  In addition to broadening the scope of the law’s applicability, the amendment would permit the Virginia Attorney General to impose a civil penalty of up to $150,000 per breach (or series of similar breaches that are discovered pursuant to a single investigation), without limiting the ability of individuals to recover direct economic damages for violations.

Update: On February 11, 2011, BNA's Privacy Law Watch reported that SB 1041 had failed and would not be carried over to the next legislative session.

On December 18, 2010, President Obama signed into law the “Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010” (S.3987), which amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act with respect to the applicability of identity theft guidelines to creditors.  The law limits the scope of the Federal Trade Commission’s Identity Theft Red Flags Rule (“Red Flags Rule”), which requires “creditors” and “financial institutions” that have “covered accounts” to develop and implement written identity theft prevention programs to help identify, detect and respond to patterns, practices or specific activities that indicate possible identity theft.

On December 8, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Social Security Number Protection Act of 2010 (S. 3789), which is aimed at reducing identity theft by limiting access to Social Security numbers.  The bill prohibits printing Social Security numbers, or any derivative of a Social Security number, on government-issued checks, and bars federal, state and local government entities from employing prisoners in jobs that would allow them to access Social Security numbers.  Although there are numerous state laws on the books to safeguard Social Security numbers, the ...

After several delays and revisions, the Massachusetts information security regulations, entitled “Standards for the Protection of Personal Information of Residents of the Commonwealth,” will take effect on March 1, 2010. The regulations apply to entities that own or license personal information about Massachusetts residents. “Personal information” is defined as a combination of a resident’s first and last name and Social Security number, driver’s license or state ID number, or financial account number or payment card number that permits access to the individual’s financial account.

On November 9, 2009, Connecticut’s Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, announced an investigation of whether Blue Cross and Blue Shield (“BCBS”) violated Connecticut’s data breach notification law by waiting until two months after a data breach had occurred to notify affected Connecticut residents.  The data breach, which Attorney General Blumenthal called “one of the most sizable and significant in Connecticut’s history,” involved the theft of a laptop containing confidential unencrypted data from the car of a BCBS employee in late August.  BCBS notified affected Connecticut residents of the breach in late October.

The mere increased risk of identity theft following a data breach is sufficient to give the data subjects standing to bring a lawsuit in federal court but, absent actual identity theft or other actual harm, claims against the data owner and its service provider for negligence and breach of contract cannot survive, a federal judge ruled this month.  Ruiz v. Gap, Inc., et al., No. 07-5739 SC (N.D. Cal. April 6, 2009).

The New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs has published a pre-proposal of rules relating to the protection of personal information (“PPR”) and is accepting comments on the PPR until February 13, 2009, after which it will formally propose rules. The PPR comes nearly a year after the state withdrew earlier proposed rules (the “Original Proposal”) that drew fire from the business community for the burdens they would have imposed. Among other obligations, the PPR would (i) require implementation of a comprehensive written security program; (ii) impose security breach ...

New York State recently enacted legislation restricting the use of Social Security numbers (“SSNs”) by employers. The legislation takes effect on January 3, 2009.