The following post was originally included as part of our recently published memorandum “Selected Issues for Boards of Directors in 2021”.
Cybersecurity, a topic that was already top of mind for boards and corporate stakeholders at the start of the year, was pushed even further to the fore in the wake of the
On January 6, 2021, a bipartisan group of state legislators introduced the “Biometric Privacy Act,” (Assembly Bill 27), which would make New York only the second state with a private right of action against entities that improperly use or retain biometric information. This is the third time that New York lawmakers have proposed such a bill.
The bill would protect individuals’ biometric identifiers, defined as fingerprints, voiceprints, retina or iris scans, and scans of face or hand geometry, as well as information based on such identifiers used to identify an individual.[1]
Under the bill, private entities in possession of biometric identifiers or information would need to develop and comply with publicly available written policies establishing retention schedules and guidelines for permanently destroying the identifiers or information when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining them has been satisfied or within three years of the individual’s last interaction with the entity, whichever occurs first. Private entities would also be required to store, transmit, and protect from disclosure all biometric identifiers and information using the reasonable standard of care in their industry, and in a manner that is the same as or more protective than the manner in which they store, transmit, and protect other confidential and sensitive information.
Continue Reading New York Lawmakers Introduce Biometric Privacy Bill with Private Right of Action
On August 20, 2020, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that it had charged Joseph Sullivan, the former Chief Security Officer (“CSO”) of Uber Technologies Inc. (“Uber”), with obstruction of justice and misprision of a felony for allegedly attempting to cover up Uber’s 2016 data incident during the course of an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”).
Continue Reading DOJ Charges Former Uber Executive for Alleged Role in Attempted Cover-Up of 2016 Data Breach
In a landmark enforcement action related to a bank data breach, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) assessed an $80 million civil monetary penalty and entered into a cease and desist order with the bank subsidiaries of Capital One on August 6, 2020. The actions follow a 2019 cyber-attack against Capital One. The Federal Reserve Board also entered into a cease and desist order with the banks’ parent holding company. The OCC actions represent the first imposition of a significant penalty against a bank in connection with a data breach or an alleged failure to comply with the OCC’s guidelines relating to information security.
Continue Reading OCC Imposes $80 Million Penalty in Connection with Bank Data Breach
On June 25, 2020, a federal district court in the Eastern District of Virginia held that a bank must produce in discovery a report generated by its cybersecurity forensic investigator following a 2019 data breach involving unauthorized access to personal information of customers and individuals who had applied for accounts.[1] Even though the report was produced at the direction of outside counsel, the court rejected arguments that the forensic report is protected from disclosure by the work product doctrine. Instead, the court determined that the report was not produced primarily in anticipation of litigation based on several factors, including the similarity of the report to past business-related work product by the investigator and the bank’s subsequent use and dissemination of the report. This decision raises questions about the scope of work product protection for forensic expert and other similar reports in the context of an internal investigation.
Continue Reading Federal Court Compels Production of Data Breach Forensic Investigation Report
On May 5, 2020, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff has standing to assert a claim under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) even without alleging any economic loss or data breach. The court’s decision in Bryant v. Compass Group USA, Inc.,[1] held that merely alleging a failure to receive adequate disclosure or provide informed consent is sufficient to state a claim, potentially establishing in the Seventh Circuit a low bar for making claims under BIPA and other state statutes modeled off of it.
Continue Reading The Seventh Circuit Holds That Lack of Disclosure and Informed Consent Under Biometric Information Privacy Act Satisfies Article III Standing Requirement
On April 15, 2020, the U.S. Departments of State, the Treasury, and Homeland Security, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued an advisory alert providing guidance on the North Korean cyber threat and steps to mitigate that threat (the “Alert”).[1] The U.S. Government has repeatedly warned the private sector that North Korea, formally known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (“DPRK”), routinely engages in malicious cyber activities and has specifically targeted financial institutions.
This Alert serves as a reminder, especially during this pandemic as businesses go remote and virtual to an unprecedented degree, that the cyber threat, including from the DPRK, remains a critical risk for all companies. Financial institutions in particular, a traditional target of North Korean cyber activity, should take steps to ensure they are protecting themselves from and responding effectively to malicious cyber intrusions.
Continue Reading CISA Alert: North Korean Cyber Threat Poses Increased Risk for Financial Institutions
As firms respond to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic by increasingly transitioning to remote and telework arrangements, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) issued an alert on measures that firms and associated persons can take to address resulting cybersecurity vulnerabilities:
On Wednesday, March 11, 2020, the California Attorney General released a second set of modifications (the “March Revisions”) to the proposed regulations implementing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA”), including substantive changes to both the initial draft regulations issued in October (the “Initial Regulations”) and the revisions published Friday, February 7, 2020
Efforts to contain COVID-19 have resulted in many employees working remotely for potentially an extended period of time. While such precautions are in place, it is important to stay vigilant of cybersecurity risks. There are already reports of COVID-19 related phishing scams and a recent hack of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department amid its pandemic response. Remote working can exacerbate these risks. Below is a checklist of key issues to keep in mind on this subject:
Continue Reading Managing Cyber Risk During COVID-19 Response