Nearly a decade ago, WikiLeaks ushered in the age of mass leaks.  Since then, corporations, governments, public figures and private entities have increasingly had to reckon with a new reality: that vigilantes, activists, extortionists and even state actors can silently steal and rapidly disseminate proprietary information, including customer data and other sensitive information.  Last month, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) indicted four individuals based on information first revealed in the “Panama Papers” leak.  This marks a significant milestone in law enforcement’s reliance on evidence based on an unauthorized mass leak of information.  While leaks and hacks are not a novel phenomenon—in 1971, the New York Times published top secret documents on the Vietnam War and, in 1994, a paralegal leaked tobacco industry documents that ultimately cost the industry billions of dollars in litigation and settlement costs—the frequency, scale and ease of dissemination of leaked information today presents a difference not only of degree, but of kind.  The new Panama Papers-based criminal case will likely raise a host of novel legal issues based on legal challenges to the DOJ’s reliance on information illegally obtained by a third party, as well as information that would ordinarily be protected by the attorney-client privilege.  In this memorandum, we discuss the potential issues raised by the prosecution and their implications.

Continue Reading U.S. Criminal Prosecution Based on Panama Papers Hack Raises Novel Legal Issues

On January 7, 2019 the National Futures Association (“NFA”) provided additional guidance on the required cybersecurity practices of certain NFA members by amending its Interpretive Notice entitled NFA Compliance Rules 2-9, 2-36 and 2-49: Information Systems Security Programs (the “Interpretive Notice”).  The Interpretive Notice currently requires each NFA member futures commission merchant (“FCM”), commodity trading advisor, commodity pool operator, introducing broker (“IB”), retail foreign exchange dealer, swap dealer (“SD”) and major swap participant to implement a written information systems security program (“ISSP”) and enact other cybersecurity procedures sufficient to identify, address and respond to cybersecurity incidents.  The amendments to the Interpretive Notice are informed by NFA examinations of member ISSPs since the Interpretive Notice became effective in March 2016.  They are intended to clarify certain common questions posed by NFA members related to internal approvals of the ISSP and employee training.  The amendments additionally impose a new notification requirement for specified cybersecurity incidents. Continue Reading NFA Amends Interpretive Notice Regarding Cybersecurity Programs

On November 21, 2018, in Dittman v. UPMC d/b/a The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that an employer has a legal duty to exercise reasonable care to safeguard its employees’ sensitive personal information stored on an internet-accessible computer.[1] Dittman is notable because it is the first time a state’s highest court has broadly held that a company owes a duty to its employees to protect their personal data that it collects and stores. Also, by rejecting the economic loss doctrine, the court opened the door to the potential recovery of pecuniary damages in data breach cases alleging a negligence theory. If the holding of Dittman is adopted by courts in other states, employers could face increased risk of financial liability following a data breach that compromises personal information of employees. Continue Reading Pennsylvania’s Highest Court Rules that Employers Have a Duty to Guard Their Employees’ Personal Data

On December 20, 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) released its 2019 Examination Priorities.  The six themes for this year’s priorities are:  retail investors (including seniors and those saving for retirement), compliance and risk in registrants responsible for critical market infrastructure (clearing agencies, transfer agents, national securities exchanges and Regulation SCI entities), oversight of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, digital assets, cybersecurity and anti-money laundering.  The only new theme for 2019 compared to 2018 is digital assets, which we take to imply a plan to more closely—and substantively—regulate investment advisers and broker-dealers involved with this asset class.  The 2019 priorities also more explicitly than the 2018 priorities describe specific practices that OCIE found concerning in examinations of those entities, many of which involved failure to adequately safeguard client assets and the adequacy of disclosures of conflicts of interest.  We expect to see a corresponding focus in Enforcement Division investigations and cases on these issues as a result. Continue Reading Lessons from the SEC Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations’ 2019 Priorities

On November 27, 2018, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee’s Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security held an oversight hearing of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.  The hearing marked the first appearance before the Senate of the full slate of current FTC commissioners: Republicans Chairman Joe Simons, Noah Phillips, and Christine Wilson, and Democrats Rohit Chopra and Rebecca Slaughter.  In addition to confirming that the FTC will continue to prioritize data security and privacy enforcement under its consumer protection mandate, the commissioners were unanimous in their support for comprehensive federal data privacy legislation to be enforced by the FTC.  Each, however, offered slightly different views as to the right approach for potential legislation and future enforcement. Continue Reading FTC Chair, Commissioners Endorse Comprehensive Privacy Legislation at Senate Oversight Hearing

On November 28, 2018, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s motion for a preliminary injunction against Blockvest, LLC and Reginald Ringgold in connection with Defendants’ initial coin offering (“ICO”).  In doing so, the court found disputed issues of fact existed regarding whether the so-called “BLV” tokens constituted “securities” under the test set out in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co.[1]  This is not the first time a court has characterized the question of whether an ICO token satisfies Howey’s requirements as a factual one.[2]  But, the decision is notable for being the first instance of a court ruling against the SEC in an ICO and because it focused its inquiry under Howey on the subjective understanding of particular investors rather than the objective characteristics of the tokens themselves. Continue Reading California District Court Denies SEC Preliminary Injunction in ICO Case, Says Tokens’ Status As Securities Is Question of Fact

On November 28, 2018, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) identified for the first time digital currency addresses associated with sanctioned persons.  The newly sanctioned individuals, Iran-based Ali Khorashadizadeh and Mohammad Ghorbaniyan, were accused of converting digital currency payments into Iranian rial as part of a widespread ransomware scheme.  Since 2015, the ransomware scheme (known as “SamSam”) has infected the data networks of corporations, hospitals, universities, and government agencies.  According to OFAC’s announcement, the identified bitcoin addresses were used with over 40 digital currency exchangers to process more than 7,000 illicit transactions in bitcoins worth millions of U.S. dollars. Continue Reading OFAC Lists Digital Currency Addresses for First Time, Releases New Guidance

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

The nature of any injury suffered by individuals from a cyber incident continues to be a major issue in data breach litigation.  As we have previously discussed, the Supreme Court has thus far declined to address the issue of Article III standing in the data breach context, resulting in an ongoing circuit split on whether data theft is by itself sufficient to satisfy Article III’s injury requirements.[1]  Two federal Courts of Appeals recently grappled with injury requirements in the data breach context.  Continue Reading Fourth Circuit and Eighth Circuit Address Injury in Data Breach Cases

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