Last month, the Brazilian National Monetary Council (the “CMN”) issued Resolution No. 4,658 (the “Resolution”), which establishes new cybersecurity requirements covering institutions regulated by the Brazilian Central Bank (Banco Central do Brasil).  The Resolution requires covered financial institutions to have cybersecurity policies in place by May 6, 2019, and be fully compliant with the regulation by December 31, 2021.  Notably, the Resolution’s requirements cover third-party service providers that contract with covered institutions, including those located outside of Brazil.  Continue Reading Brazil Issues new Cybersecurity Regulation for Regulated Financial Institutions

A recent FTC settlement highlights the need for companies to oversee their service providers, with respect to both collection of personal information and data security practices.

On April 30, 2018, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced a settlement with BLU Products, Inc. (“BLU”), a Florida-based mobile device manufacturer, resolving allegations that BLU shared sensitive consumer data with a third-party service provider in violation of BLU’s privacy policy and the FTC Act.   Continue Reading FTC Settlement Signals the Importance of Service Provider Oversight

On April 24, 2018, Altaba, formerly known as Yahoo, entered into a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), pursuant to which Altaba agreed to pay $35 million to resolve allegations that Yahoo violated federal securities laws in connection with the disclosure of the 2014 data breach of its user database.  The case represents the first time a public company has been charged by the SEC for failing to adequately disclose a cyber breach, an area that is expected to face continued heightened scrutiny as enforcement authorities and the public are increasingly focused on the actions taken by companies in response to such incidents.  Altaba’s settlement with the SEC, coming on the heels of its agreement to pay $80 million to civil class action plaintiffs alleging similar disclosure violations, underscores the increasing potential legal exposure for companies based on failing to properly disclose cybersecurity risks and incidents.

Please click here to read the full alert memorandum.

On April 11, 2018, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of plaintiffs’ proposed class action arising out of a 2012 data breach affecting Barnes & Noble.[1]  In so holding, the court reaffirmed its view that allegations of data theft with a substantial risk of future harm are sufficient to assert an “injury” under Article III, even in the absence of allegations that the risk actually materialized.[2]  The Seventh Circuit further found that such injury may also satisfy the requisite damages allegations under federal pleading requirements. Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Expands Jurisprudence in Data Breach Cases

On April 18, 2018, government officials and cyber industry experts gathered in Washington, D.C., for the 2018 Incident Response Forum addressing legal and compliance challenges that arise following a data breach.  At the conference, representatives from the SEC, DOJ, FTC, and other federal and state enforcement agencies discussed their top data breach-related concerns and enforcement priorities.  Representatives spoke in their own capacity and were not making official agency statements, but their opinions can provide useful insight into agencies’ decision making processes and substantive views. Continue Reading Regulators and Law Enforcement Discuss Cyber Enforcement Priorities and Urge Cooperation Following Data Breaches

In a recent letter to leaders of the House Financial Services Committee, 31 state attorneys general urged Congress not to move forward with the Data Acquisition and Technology Accountability and Security Act, a federal breach notification bill, which aims to create a uniform set of reporting requirements for businesses nationwide.  In their letter, the attorneys general argue that states have proven able enforcers of their citizens’ data privacy and security and, as such, the bill’s proposed preemption of state data breach and data security laws is unwarranted.   Continue Reading State Attorneys General Warn Against Federal Data Breach Bill

Over recent months, numerous state regulators, including in Massachusetts, Texas, and New Jersey, have been exercising greater oversight of cryptocurrency businesses.[1]  On April 17, 2018, the office of the New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (“NYAG”) launched the Virtual Markets Integrity Initiative, which will seek information from various platforms that trade cryptocurrencies to better protect consumers.  The initiative responds to concerns that cryptocurrency trading platforms may not provide consumers with the same information available from traditional exchanges.  As part of the initiative, the NYAG’s Investor Protection Bureau sent thirteen major cryptocurrency trading platforms questionnaires relating to internal policies, controls, and best practices.  The Bureau intends to consolidate and disseminate to consumers the information it receives. Continue Reading New York Attorney General Becomes Most Recent State Regulator To Foray Into Cryptocurrency Oversight

On April 12, 2018, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) announced an agreement with Uber Technologies, Inc., to expand an August 2017 settlement regarding a 2014 data breach to include new violations arising from a second data breach that Uber discovered in 2016 but did not publicly disclose for over one year.  The revised settlement order imposes new notification, reporting, and records retention obligations on Uber for up to 20 years regarding third-party audits of its privacy program, future data breaches involving personal data, and its bug bounty program.  The proposed settlement order will be open for public comment for 30 days, after which time the Commission is likely to make the order final.

In August 2017, Uber entered into a consent agreement with the FTC related to a data breach that occurred three years before.  The complaint resolved by the 2017 settlement order alleged that, in May 2014, an intruder used an access key publicly posted on the website GitHub to access sensitive personal information of Uber drivers (who the FTC treats as consumers) that Uber stored with a cloud provider.  This information allegedly included unencrypted names, driver’s license numbers, bank account and routing numbers, and Social Security numbers.  The FTC alleged that Uber had failed to (1) “implement reasonable access controls” to safeguard personal data of drivers and riders stored in the cloud, (2) implement reasonable security training and guidance, (3) maintain a written security program, and (4) encrypt certain information stored with the cloud provider.  The complaint charged that Uber’s representations about the security of, and internal monitoring and auditing regarding access to, consumers’ personal information were false or misleading in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).

In the 2018 complaint, the FTC alleges that Uber contemporaneously discovered a second data breach that had occurred in the fall of 2016—during the midst of the FTC’s nonpublic investigation into the 2014 breach.  According to the complaint, intruders used an access key that had been posted to a private repository associated with GitHub to download unencrypted files containing personal data of U.S. riders and drivers, including approximately “25.6 million names and email addresses, 22.1 million names and mobile phone numbers, and 607,000 names and driver’s license numbers.” Continue Reading Revised FTC-Uber data breach settlement to include second breach, criticize ‘bug bounty’ payment

As of last month, when South Dakota and Alabama passed data breach notification laws, all 50 states (as well as the District of Columbia and several U.S. territories) now have data breach notification laws on their books. Continue Reading All 50 States Now Have Data Breach Notification Laws

On March 27, 2018, Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin announced that the state had ordered five firms to halt initial coin offerings (“ICOs”) on the grounds that the ICOs constituted unregistered offerings of securities but made no allegations of fraud.  These orders follow a growing line of state enforcement actions aimed at ICOs.

This was not Massachusetts’s first foray into regulating ICOs.  On January 17, 2018 the state filed a complaint alleging violations of securities and broker-dealer registration requirements against the company Caviar and its founder for an ICO that sought to create a “pooled investment fund with hedged exposure to crypto-assets and real estate debt.”

Continue Reading Massachusetts Orders Five Companies to Halt ICOs as States Step Up Enforcement Efforts