The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) imposes strict obligations upon organizations that process the “personal data” of European individuals. Failure to comply with GDPR can result in large fines. The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), in recent months, issued a number of fines of £500,000 on global businesses with household names, and such fines have generated a lot of publicity. Many onlookers would be shocked by the magnitude of those fines but may not have appreciated that they were imposed under the Data Protection Act 1998, which was in force when the offending breaches occurred. Had the breaches taken place after May 25th of this year, when the GDPR took effect, those fines would more than likely have been significantly higher.

Businesses have therefore invested significant resources and money to make sure that they do not fall foul of the obligations imposed by the GDPR. Yet, within less than a year of the GDPR becoming binding law, those same businesses face further disruption as Brexit looms. Continue Reading Implications of Brexit on GDPR

On November, 2, 2018, Ohio’s recently passed Data Protection Act (Act) officially became law. The Act provides a possible affirmative defense to businesses in lawsuits where the plaintiff alleges a tort based on a business’ failure to implement a cybersecurity framework.

Importantly, the new law does not create a minimum cybersecurity standard in Ohio or new cybersecurity regulations that businesses must follow. Rather, the law operates by incentivizing businesses to develop and maintain a cybersecurity program that “reasonably conforms” to an already existing, industry recognized cybersecurity framework. If the company can prove that it had a compliant cybersecurity program in place at the time of a breach, the company can use the program’s existence as an affirmative defense to certain tort claims. Continue Reading New Cybersecurity Law Offers Safe Harbor Against Tort Claims

In August, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) approved changes to a video game industry program in an effort to ensure compliance with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). This comes after a 2017 study finding that YouTube, the video platform owned by Google, is the most popular online media platform among children, with as many as 80% of children ages 6-12 using it daily. Yet YouTube claims in its Terms of Service that the platform is not intended for anyone under the age of 13, and by agreeing to the terms, consumers affirm that they are indeed at least 13 years old. Users also agree to Google’s privacy policy, which details how Google collects data such as a viewer’s device, location, or phone number, and tailors advertisements and services based on that data.

Continue Reading FTC Under Pressure from Congress to Investigate Violations of Child Privacy Laws

Beginning in 2020, California residents will have the right to opt out of the sale of their personal information under the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CaCPA or also called CCPA). It is time to revisit your third-party service provider agreements.  Companies now have two reasons to ensure that service provider agreements restrict the use or sale of personal information: to comply with CaCPA and to reduce risk of an FTC enforcement action. Continue Reading Preparing for 2020: Check In On Your Vendors

2018 Best Legal Blog Contest - Click to Vote

Effective October 1, 2018, Connecticut has the most stringent requirement—24 months—for free mitigation services that must be provided to those affected by a data breach of personally identifiable information (in the case of Connecticut: (A) Social Security number; (B) driver’s license number or state identification card number; (C) credit or debit card number; or (D) financial account number in combination with any required security code, access code or password that would permit access to such financial account).

With a new high-water set, it is likely that other states will quickly follow suit.  In the meantime, for entities that are responding to a multi-state data breach that includes Connecticut, there will now be a business decision of whether or not to offer 24 months of services to all affected individuals regardless of state law requirements (some of which are silent and the rest of which require 12 months of services).

The convergence of the General Data Protection Regulation and the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election has created a perfect privacy storm. Social media platforms’ complacency on this front, and the resulting public backlash, have further amplified the pressure on legislatures to react.  Although state legislatures have been quick to do so (most notably California, which passed a sweeping new privacy law in June), Congress has not.

Recently, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) issued a draft white paper proposing 20 policy approaches to combat these issues.  The proposals seek to enhance user privacy, increase transparency, and dam the deluge of misinformation that, to date, has run through social media platforms largely unchecked.

Continue Reading Warner White Paper Floats Far-Ranging Privacy Proposals

This post originally appeared in our sister publication, Insurance Recovery Blog.

For the second time in ten days, a federal appeals court ruled a crime insurance policy provides coverage for losses arising from a business email compromise. In American Tooling Center, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, No. 17-2014, 2018 WL 3404708 (Sixth Circuit July 13, 2018), the Sixth Circuit held that Travelers was obligated to provide coverage for a loss the insured suffered when it wired $834,000 to a thief’s bank account, believing that it was transmitting a payment to one of its Chinese subcontractors.

Losses arising from business email compromise exceeded $12.5 billion between October 2013 and May 2018. Business email compromise is a form of social-engineering fraud that targets both businesses and individuals who make payments by wire transfer. Thieves accomplish business email compromise by accessing e-mail accounts of vendors or customers of the insured or by invading the computer system of the insured. The thief then provides fraudulent instructions to the insured to wire funds to the thief’s bank account, usually for the stated purpose of paying legitimate invoices.

Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Finds Coverage Under Crime Policy for Business Email Compromise

Personal information has become the prey of relentless poachers. In light of the influx of data breaches, state legislatures are taking action.  Not surprisingly, now every state has enacted data breach notification laws, which are triggered when personal information is breached.  Read below for a summary of relevant state legislation recently adopted or laws recently amended that pertaining to data breach notification.

Arizona

Arizona amended its data breach notification law, effective July 21, 2018. This amendment requires companies to notify affected consumers within a 45-day window upon discovery of a data breach. If the data breach impacts more than 1,000 consumers, companies must also notify the state attorney general as well as the three largest consumer credit reporting agencies. The state attorney general can also impose up to $500,000 in penalties for a company’s non-compliance.

Continue Reading Updates to State Data Breach Laws

On August 1, 2018, NIST will withdraw eleven SP 800 publications that are considered out of date.  These publications will not be revised.  According to NIST the following publications will be withdrawn:

  • SP 800-13 (October 1995), Telecommunications Security Guidelines for Telecommunications Management Network
  • SP 800-17 (February 1998), Modes of Operation Validation System (MOVS): Requirements and Procedures
  • SP 800-19 (October 1999), Mobile Agent Security
  • SP 800-23 (August 2000), Guidelines to Federal Organizations on Security Assurance and Acquisition/Use of Tested/Evaluated Products
  • SP 800-24 (April 2001), PBX Vulnerability Analysis: Finding Holes in Your PBX Before Someone Else Does
  • SP 800-33 (December 2001), Underlying Technical Models for Information Technology Security
  • SP 800-36 (October 2003), Guide to Selecting Information Technology Security Products
  • SP 800-43 (November 2002), Systems Administration Guidance for Securing Windows 2000 Professional System
  • SP 800-65 (January 2005), Integrating IT Security into the Capital Planning and Investment Control Process
  • SP 800-68 Rev. 1 (October 2008), Guide to Securing Microsoft Windows XP Systems for IT Professionals: A NIST Security Configuration Checklist
  • SP 800-69 (September 2006), Guidance for Securing Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition: A NIST Security Configuration Checklist

More information about these publications and the reason for withdrawal can be found here.

As previously discussed, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) created heightened consent standards for companies processing and sharing personal data of EU data subjects.  When processing personal data under the GDPR, consent must be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous.  Further, the GDPR requires affirmative action by the user, forcing them to manually “check/click” opt-in boxes.  This removes the potential for “implied consent” under past acceptable practice, where the consent box was already “checked/clicked” for users; under that practice the user gave “implied consent” unless the box was manually “unchecked”  (withdrawing their consent).

While the GDPR governs the processing and sharing of personal data, a second set of regulations has already been regulating electronic direct marketing (EDM).  The Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) sets rules that organizations must follow when sending EDM.  As a result, when organizations process personal data for use in EDM campaigns, there must be compliance with both the GDPR and PECR.

Continue Reading How Direct Marketing is Impacted by GDPR and PECR