Cybersecurity and data privacy continue to be among the most significant legal risks that businesses face today.

Last year brought a series of high-profile cyberattacks on major companies and U.S. infrastructure targets, continuing the trend seen in recent years. Regulators also brought a number of cybersecurity enforcement actions and announced new rules, guidance, and initiatives on ransomware and other cyber-related issues. In addition, after many years of debate, Congress made some progress in crafting legislation that would require certain companies to report significant cyberattacks and ransomware payments to the U.S. federal government. Companies should expect the demands of cybersecurity risk management and oversight to intensify as we enter 2022.
Continue Reading 2021 Cybersecurity and Privacy Developments in the United States

On January 19, 2022, District Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action filed against men’s clothing store Bonobos, Inc., following an August 2020 data breach.  Judge Furman determined that a Bonobos customer whose personal information was stolen in the breach failed to demonstrate a sufficiently substantial risk of harm to establish standing to sue.

The decision in Cooper v. Bonobos reflects the increased uncertainty regarding the viability of suits for damages based solely on future risk of identity theft or fraud, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez.
Continue Reading Data Breach Class Action Against Bonobos Dismissed For Lack of Standing

A 2021 survey of chief legal officers demonstrated that cybersecurity has overtaken compliance as the most significant legal risk that businesses face today. This should not come as a surprise as 2021 brought a series of high-profile cyberattacks on major companies and U.S. infrastructure targets.
Continue Reading Cybersecurity: Data Breaches, Ransomware Attacks and Increased Regulatory Focus

On November 18, 2021, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) announced a final rule requiring banking organizations to notify their primary regulator of certain significant computer-security incidents as soon as possible and no later than 36 hours after they occur.[1]  The rule separately requires bank service providers to notify their bank customers if they experience a cyber incident that causes, or is reasonably likely to cause, a material disruption of services that lasts for four or more hours.
Continue Reading Banking Regulators Approve Final Rule Establishing Cyber Incident Notification Requirements

Recent developments in a lawsuit have illustrated the importance of maintaining sufficient data security measures and responding adequately to data breaches, which topics are addressed in Cleary Gottlieb’s Global Crisis Management Handbook in depth. A class-action lawsuit in the Northern District of California against Robinhood Financial, LLC, a securities trading platform, alleges that unauthorized users

Last week, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of Article III standing a proposed class action against a health services provider that mistakenly disclosed personally identifiable information (“PII”).  In its opinion, the Second Circuit held that plaintiffs may establish Article III standing based on an increased risk of identity theft or fraud following an unauthorized disclosure of their data, but that the standard was not met based on the facts presented.  The decision, which is the first time the Second Circuit has explicitly adopted this standard, has potentially important implications going forward for data breach cases.

Continue Reading Second Circuit Articulates Injury Standard in Data Breach Suits

Last month, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed claims brought in a putative class action seeking damages for disclosure of credit card information in a data breach resulting from a cyberattack.  In I Tan Tsao v. Captiva MVP Restaurant Partners, LLC., the court held that the named plaintiff could not establish standing to sue based on allegations that the data breach created a “continuing increased risk of harm from identity theft and identity fraud” or that the plaintiff took affirmative steps to mitigate such potential harm. [1]  This decision follows the reasoning set forth in the court’s recent en banc decision in Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc, in which similar allegations were rejected as insufficient to support standing in a case seeking statutory damages from technical violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, and adds to the circuit split on the issue.[2]
Continue Reading 11th Circuit Rejects Standing Based on Heightened Risk of Identity Theft in Data Breach Suit

Last month, in Guo Wengui v. Clark Hill, PLC, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of Defendant’s third-party forensic investigation report following a cybersecurity incident.[1]  The court held that the forensic report was not covered by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, providing a cautionary tale for companies conducting post-breach investigations.
Continue Reading D.C. District Court Rejects Privilege Claim for Post-Data Breach Forensic Report

On January 12, 2021, the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted Marriott’s motion to dismiss in Arifur Rahman v. Marriott International, Inc. et al[1], a class action filed against the company following its disclosure of a data breach in March 2020.  The court held that Plaintiff lacked standing to sue, breathing life into a defense that has been unsuccessful in several recent cases.

Background

The litigation against Marriott stemmed from its announcement that two employees of a Marriott franchise in Russia accessed personal information of 5.2 million guests.  The company further acknowledged that the compromised information included names, addresses, emails, phone numbers, and other personal details such as birth dates.  In April 2020, Plaintiff Arifur Rahman (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of a class, alleged six causes of action against Marriott International (“Defendant”): (1) negligence; (2) violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of implied contract; (5) unjust enrichment; and (6) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law.
Continue Reading The Central District Court of California Grants Marriott International’s Motion to Dismiss in Data Breach Suit

Cybersecurity and data privacy, topics that were already top of mind for companies at the start of 2020, were pushed even further to the forefront due to the COVID-19 pandemic, significant data security enforcement actions, and the SolarWinds breach discovered in December.

The increased prevalence of remote work made it all the more critical for