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

On February 18, 2021, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $507,375 settlement with BitPay, Inc. (BitPay), a payment processor for merchants accepting digital currency as payment for goods and services, for 2,102 apparent violations of multiple sanctions programs between 2013 and 2018.[1] The settlement highlights that financial service providers facilitating digital currency transactions must not only establish sanctions compliance programs to screen their own customers but also must monitor third-party non-customer transaction information.
Continue Reading OFAC Settles with Digital Currency Payment Processor for Sanctions Violations

In a decision with potentially far-reaching implications, Alasaad v. Mayorkas, Nos. 20-1077, 20-1081, 2021 WL 521570 (1st Cir. Feb. 9, 2021), the First Circuit recently rejected First and Fourth Amendment challenges to the U.S. government agency policies governing border searches of electronic devices. These policies permit so-called “basic” manual searches of electronic devices without any articulable suspicion, requiring reasonable suspicion only when officers perform “advanced” searches that use external equipment to review, copy, or analyze a device.  The First Circuit held that even these “advanced” searches require neither probable cause nor a warrant, and it split with the Ninth Circuit in holding that searches need not be limited to searches for contraband, but may also be used to search for evidence of contraband or evidence of other illegal activity. This decision implicates several takeaways for company executives entering and leaving the United States, particularly if they or their employers are under active investigation.  In-house counsel in particular should consider the implications of the decision given obligations of lawyers to protect the confidentiality of attorney-client privileged information.

Continue Reading First Circuit Upholds Border Searches of Electronic Devices Without Probable Cause

Recently, the New York Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) issued two memoranda addressing the ongoing increase in cyberattacks.  The first recent guidance provides best practices for insurance entities with regard to cyber insurance.[1]  The second guidance deals with the surge in benefits fraud that has been ongoing since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, with directions on how regulated entities can best secure data.[2]
Continue Reading New York Department of Financial Services Issues New Guidance on Cyber Threats

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

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

Patchwork and continually changing regulation continues to be the trend in data privacy law, with 2020 adding new legislation to the fray and striking down some existing privacy structures. 2021 will likely be a time of reflection for businesses trying to adjust to impending new requirements in the face of an increasingly remote workforce and customer base.
Continue Reading The Privacy Law Plot Continues to Thicken: Compliance Considerations for 2021

In July 2019, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) issued two notices of intent (“NOIs”) to fine British Airways (“BA”) and Marriott International Inc. (“Marriott”) for violations of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), both related to high-profile personal data breaches. The NOIs proposed staggering fines of £183.39 million and £99.2 million, respectively, which would have constituted the largest penalties levied under the GDPR to date. More than a year later, the UK ICO finally issued the long-awaited penalty notices in relation to both investigations, imposing in both cases fines that, while still significant, were greatly reduced from what had initially been indicated – £20 million in the case of BA (a massive reduction of more than £163 million), and £18.4 million in the case of Marriott (an equally surprising reduction of more than £79 million).
Continue Reading UK ICO Data Breach Fines – What Can We Learn From British Airways and Marriott?