Photo of Rahul Mukhi

Rahul Mukhi’s practice focuses on criminal, securities, and other enforcement and regulatory matters as well as on complex commercial litigation.

On September 26, 2018, the attorney generals of all 50 states and the District of Columbia (“State AGs”) announced a record-breaking $148 million settlement with Uber Technologies Inc. (“Uber”) over Uber’s alleged failure to disclose a massive data breach in 2016.[1] The settlement holds significant implications for U.S. companies concerned about their cybersecurity measures in the face of increasing incidents of data breaches, as well as intensifying scrutiny by authorities. Continue Reading State AGs Announce Settlement With Uber Over Data Breach

On the heels of the European Union’s implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and public outcry over the Cambridge Analytica scandal, on June 28, 2018, California enacted the most comprehensive data privacy law to date in the United States. The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA”) was hastily passed by the California legislature to secure the withdrawal of an even more far-reaching measure that had qualified for the November ballot. Legislative amendments to the law are expected before it goes into effect on January 1, 2020.

The CCPA requires covered businesses to comply with requirements that give California consumers broad rights to know what personal information has been collected about them, the sources for the information, the purpose of collecting it, and whether it is sold or otherwise disclosed to third parties. It also gives consumers the right to access personal information about them held by covered businesses, to require deletion of the information and/or to prevent its sale to third parties. Other key provisions limit the ability of a covered business to discriminate against consumers who exercise their rights under the statute by charging them higher prices or delivering lower quality products or services.  The rights provided under the CCPA are similar in many respects to those afforded EU residents under the GDPR, but there are distinctions in approach on some key issues.

Please click here to read the full alert memorandum.

On June 27, 2018, Equifax Inc., the credit reporting agency, agreed to implement stronger data security measures under a consent order with the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) and seven other state banking regulators.[1] The order imposes detailed duties on Equifax’s Board of Directors in response to criticisms raised by the regulators during an examination of Equifax’s cybersecurity and internal audit functions.  The examination followed the company’s massive 2017 data breach, which exposed sensitive personal information of nearly 148 million customers.  Equifax agreed to the order without admitting or denying any charges of “unsafe or unsound information security practices.”

Continue Reading State Regulators Reach Settlement With Equifax in Connection With Massive Data Breach

On June 22, 2018, the United States Supreme Court decided Carpenter v. United States, in which it held that the government must generally obtain a search warrant supported by probable cause before acquiring more than seven days of historical cell-site location information (“CSLI”) from a service provider. Noting “the deeply revealing nature of CSLI, its depth, breadth, and comprehensive reach, and the inescapable and automatic nature of its collection,” the Court held that an individual “maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements captured through CSLI” that warrants Fourth Amendment protection. While the Court sought to construe its decision narrowly, the reasoning of the majority and Justice Gorsuch in his dissent raise significant questions about whether and to what extent individuals may have a reasonable expectation of privacy or possessory interest in other sensitive personal data held by third parties beyond the CSLI at issue in Carpenter.

Please click here to read the full alert memorandum.

In response to pressure from advocacy group Californians for Consumer Privacy, on June 21, 2018, California lawmakers proposed a new law, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, which would significantly expand consumers’ rights over their data.  The proposed law would apply to entities that do business in California, collect consumers’ personal information or determine the purpose and means of processing such data, and satisfy at least one of the following: (i) have over $25 million in annual gross revenue, (ii) buy or receive, sell or share for commercial purposes, the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households or devices, or (iii) derive 50 percent or more of revenue from the sale of consumer personal information. Continue Reading California Introduces Bill Expanding Consumer Rights Over Data Privacy

The consequences of a cybersecurity incident can be severe. The economic loss associated with an incident can often be compounded by reputational damage, loss of trade secrets, destruction of assets, operational impairment, lost revenue following the announcement of the cybersecurity incident and the expense of implementing remedial measures. The timing and content of any public communication about a suspected or confirmed cybersecurity incident can exacerbate this loss and have a significant impact on the trading price of the issuer’s securities.[1] The disclosure considerations become even more complex when a company is subject to overlapping, and potentially conflicting, regulatory obligations in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union (“EU”). This issue is now at the forefront with the EU’s new data security and privacy regime, the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), which became effective on May 25, 2018.

Continue Reading Untangling the Tangled Web of Cybersecurity Disclosure Requirements: A Practical Guide

Tomorrow, May 25, the European Union’s (“E.U.’s”) sweeping and much-awaited data security and privacy regulation known as the General Data Protection Regulation, or “GDPR,” will come into force.  We have previously written a full analysis of the new requirements under the GDPR for companies subject to its jurisdiction.

Since the GDPR was formally approved in 2016, organizations around the world have devoted significant time and resources to preparing for the new law’s implementation.  But while tomorrow is a deadline, it is also a start date—for compliance efforts that will require ongoing attention and adjustments in the months and years ahead.  With this in mind, we have compiled the following tips and resources to aid companies in their ongoing efforts that will come after May 25: Continue Reading GDPR Compliance: Tips for What Comes <i>After</i> May 25

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