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

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

A recent FTC settlement highlights the need for companies to oversee their service providers, with respect to both collection of personal information and data security practices.

On April 30, 2018, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced a settlement with BLU Products, Inc. (“BLU”), a Florida-based mobile device manufacturer, resolving allegations that BLU shared sensitive consumer data with a third-party service provider in violation of BLU’s privacy policy and the FTC Act.   Continue Reading FTC Settlement Signals the Importance of Service Provider Oversight

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

Over recent months, numerous state regulators, including in Massachusetts, Texas, and New Jersey, have been exercising greater oversight of cryptocurrency businesses.[1]  On April 17, 2018, the office of the New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (“NYAG”) launched the Virtual Markets Integrity Initiative, which will seek information from various platforms that trade cryptocurrencies to better protect consumers.  The initiative responds to concerns that cryptocurrency trading platforms may not provide consumers with the same information available from traditional exchanges.  As part of the initiative, the NYAG’s Investor Protection Bureau sent thirteen major cryptocurrency trading platforms questionnaires relating to internal policies, controls, and best practices.  The Bureau intends to consolidate and disseminate to consumers the information it receives. Continue Reading New York Attorney General Becomes Most Recent State Regulator To Foray Into Cryptocurrency Oversight

The US-China Business Council (“USCBC”) released a report on February 5, 2018.  The report identifies three key areas in which the China Cybersecurity Law (the “CCL”), which came into effect in June 2017, has posed significant challenges to companies’ ability to conduct business in China, and sets forth detailed recommendations to the Chinese regulators to address such challenges. We previously discussed the CCL and the international business community’s concerns regarding the law’s expansive scope, prescriptive requirements, and lack of clarity on a range of critical issues. The new USCBC report raising many of these same concerns can be accessed hereContinue Reading US China Business Council Lays Out Recommendations to Improve China’s Cybersecurity Regulations

In the wake of recent high-profile data breaches and in the absence of federal data protection legislation, states continue to propose new laws aimed at protecting the personal data of their residents.  On January 23, 2018, the Senate Judiciary Committee of South Dakota approved and forwarded for consideration by the full senate a bill that would require companies and individuals who operate and collect personal data in South Dakota to report data breaches affecting residents of the state within 60 days of discovery and, if more than 250 residents are affected by a data breach, to the Attorney General and consumer reporting agencies as well.  Following a number of comments received from state business associations, the Senate Judiciary Committee added to the proposed bill a threshold for risk of harm such that if, pursuant to “an appropriate investigation” and following notice to the Attorney General, a company reasonably determines that a breach is not likely to result in harm to an affected South Dakota resident, then notice to such resident is not required.  Failure to comply with the breach notification law could constitute a “deceptive act or practice” under state law enforceable by the Attorney General, who is also empowered under the law to recover civil damages not to exceed $10,000 per violation per day.  The bill will next be considered by the full senate and if passed, would leave Alabama as the sole U.S. state without a consumer data breach notification law. Continue Reading South Dakota and Colorado are Latest States to Propose New Data Privacy Laws

A recent decision by an intermediate Illinois appellate court, Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entm’t Corp.,[1] suggests that state courts—which are not bound by federal Article III standing limitations in entertaining suits—will not necessarily provide a more plaintiff-friendly forum for data privacy suits than their federal counterparts.

Earlier this month, we wrote about the Second Circuit’s summary order in Vigil v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.[2]  There, the court affirmed the dismissal of a class action lawsuit brought in the Southern District of New York under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act[3] (“BIPA”) for want of Article III standing because the plaintiffs had failed to allege an injury-in-fact, but remanded the case with instructions to amend the judgment and enter a dismissal without prejudice.[4]  The district court had ruled that the BIPA’s limitation of the private right of action to a “person aggrieved by a violation” meant that the plaintiffs’ failure to allege an injury-in-fact was also fatal to their claims as a matter of state law, meaning that the case should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.[5]  The Second Circuit vacated that portion of the ruling on jurisdictional grounds, which left the door open for the plaintiffs to attempt to bring their claims in state court without any allegation of actual harm. Continue Reading Illinois Appellate Court Holds That Mere Technical Violations Of Data Privacy Statute Are Insufficient To State A Claim