Category: Cybersecurity

Heated Debate Surrounds Proposed Federal Privacy Legislation

As we previously reported on the CPW blog, the leadership of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee released a discussion draft of proposed federal privacy legislation, the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (“ADPPA”), on June 3, 2022. Signaling potential differences amongst key members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Chair Maria Cantwell (D-WA) withheld her support. Staking out her own position, Cantwell is reportedly floating an updated version of the Consumer Online Privacy Rights Act (“COPRA”), originally proposed in 2019.

Early Stakeholder Disagreement

As soon as a discussion draft of the ADPPA was published, privacy rights organizations, civil liberty groups, and businesses entered the fray, drawing up sides for and against the bill. The ACLU came out as an early critic of the legislation. In an open letter to Congress sent June 10, the group urged caution, arguing that both the ADPPA and COPRA contain “very problematic provisions.” According to the group, more time is required to develop truly meaningful privacy legislation, as evidenced by “ACLU state affiliates who have been unable to stop harmful or effectively useless state privacy bills from being pushed quickly to enactment with enormous lobbying and advertising support of sectors of the technology industry that resist changing a business model that depends on consumers not having protections against privacy invasions and discrimination.” To avoid this fate, the ACLU urges Congress to “bolster enforcement provisions, including providing a strong private right of action, and allow the states to continue to respond to new technologies and new privacy challenges with state privacy laws.”

On June 13, a trio of trade groups representing some of the largest tech companies sent their open letter to Congress, supporting passage of a federal privacy law, but ultimately opposing the ADPPA. Contrary to the position taken by the ACLU, the industry groups worry that the bill’s inclusion of a private right of action with the potential to recover attorneys’ fees will lead to litigation abuse. The groups took issue with other provisions as well, such as the legislation’s restrictions on the use of data derived from publicly-available sources and the “duty of loyalty” to individuals whose covered data is processed.

Industry groups and consumer protection organizations had the opportunity to voice their opinions regarding the ADPPA in a public hearing on June 14. Video of the proceedings and prepared testimony of the witnesses are available here. Two common themes arose in the witnesses’ testimony: (1) general support for federal privacy legislation; and (2) opposition to discrete aspects of the bill. As has been the case for the better part of a decade in which Congress has sought to draft a federal privacy bill, two fundamental issues continue to drive the debate and must be resolved in order for the legislation to become law: the private right of action to enforce the law and preemption of state laws or portions of them. . While civil rights and privacy advocacy groups maintain that the private right of action does not go far enough and that federal privacy legislation should not preempt state law, industry groups argue that a private right of action should not be permitted and that state privacy laws should be broadly preempted.

The Path Forward

The Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is expected to mark up the draft bill the week of June 20. We expect the subcommittee to approve the draft bill with little or no changes. The full Energy and Commerce Committee should complete work on the bill before the August recess. Given the broad bipartisan support for the legislation in the House, we anticipate that the legislation, with minor tweaks, is likely to be approved by the House, setting up a showdown with the Senate after a decade of debate.

With the legislative session rapidly drawing to a close, the prospects for the ADPPA’s passage remain unclear. Intense disagreement remains amongst key constituency groups regarding important aspects of the proposed legislation. Yet, in spite of the differences, a review of the public comments to date regarding the ADPPA reveal one nearly unanimous opinion: the United States needs federal privacy legislation. In light of the fact that most interested parties agree that the U.S. would benefit from federal privacy legislation, Congress has more incentive than ever to reach compromise regarding one of the proposed privacy bills.

Article By Shea Leitch, Jeffrey L. Turner, Kristin L. Bryan, and Kyle R. Fath of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more data privacy and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Privacy Tip #335 – Health Care Sector Continues to Be Hit with Ransomware

According to the 2022 State of Ransomware Report issued recently by Sophos, it surveyed 5,600 IT professionals from 31 countries, including professionals in the health care sector. Those professionals in the health care sector shared that 66 percent of them had experienced a ransomware attack in 2021, which was an increase of 69 percent over 2020. This was the largest increase of all sectors surveyed.

If you look at the Office for Civil Rights data breach portal, you will see that a vast majority of breaches reported by health care providers and business associates are related to “Hacking/IT incident.” This confirms that the health care sector continues to be attacked by threat actors seeking to steal protected health information of patients.

If you are a patient who receives a breach notification letter from a health care provider or business associate, the letter will provide guidance on how to protect yourself following a data breach and may offer some protection guidance, including credit monitoring or fraud resolution. Such a letter has been sent to patients to comply with the breach notification requirements of HIPAA and state law. Part of those requirements includes that the patients be provided mitigation steps following the breach to protect themselves from fraud. Avail yourself of these protections in the event your information is compromised. Take the time to sign up for the mitigation offered. It is clear that these attacks will not subside any time soon.

Article By Linn F. Freedman of Robinson & Cole LLP

For more cybersecurity and media legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

Hackers Go Phishing in Beeple’s Deep Pool of Twitter Followers

“Stay safe out there, anything too good to be true is a … scam.” Beeple, a popular digital artist, tweeted to his followers, addressing the phishing scam that took place on May 23, 2022, targeting his Twitter account. The attack reportedly resulted in a loss of more than US$400,000 in cryptocurrency and NFTs, stolen from the artist’s followers on the social media website.

After hacking into Beeple’s Twitter account, perpetrators tweeted links from the artist’s page, promoting a fake raffle for unique art pieces. The links would reportedly take the user to a website that would drain the user’s cryptocurrency wallet of their digital assets.

Phishing scams for digital assets, including NFTs or non-fungible tokens, have steadily increased, with funds as large as $6 million being stolen. Various jurisdictions have adopted privacy and security laws that require companies to adopt reasonable security measures and follow required cyber incident response protocols. A significant part of these measures and protocols is training for employees in how to detect phishing scams and other hacking attempts by bad actors. This incident is a reminder to consumers to exercise vigilance, watch for red flags and not click on links without verifying the source.

The remaining summaries of news headlines are separated by region for your browsing convenience. 

UNITED STATES

Relaxed Deaccessioning COVID-19 Exemptions Expire

The global COVID-19 pandemic brought many changes, including dire financial consequences of the shutdowns for museums. In April 2020, the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) made a decision to ease the rules that dictate how museums may use proceeds from art sales. Until April 2022, museums were permitted to use the funds for “direct care of collections” rather than to procure new artworks for their collections.

This relaxed policy and some of the museums that followed it met with backlash on more than one occasion; others, however, advocate for its continuation, citing considerations of diversity and inclusion. Some further argue that a policy born out of financial desperation should be continued to provide museums with the means to overcome any future financial issues that may arise.

Given that “direct care” is vague and open to interpretation, opponents of the relaxed rules counter giving museums such latitude to decide on the use of the proceeds, as it can lead to abuses and bad decisions. While AAMD has returned to its pre-pandemic regulations, and museums have followed suit, it appears that the public debate around deaccessioning is far from over.

Inigo Philbrick Sentenced to a Prison Term

Former contemporary art dealer Inigo Philbrick was sentenced by a federal court in New York to serve seven years in prison for a “Ponzi-like” art fraud, said to be one of the most significant in the history of the art market, with more than an estimated US$86 million in damages. Philbrick stood accused of a number of bad acts, including forging signatures, selling shares in artworks he did not own and inventing fictitious clients.

New York Abolishes Auction House Regulations

As the U.S. government is studying whether the art market requires further regulations to increase transparency and to combat money laundering, New York City repealed its local law that required auctioneers to be licensed and required disclosures to bidders, including whether an auction house had a financial stake in the item being auctioned. While the abolition of the regulation was ostensibly to improve the business climate after the pandemic, some commentators note that the regulations were outdated and not serving their purpose in any event. As an illustration, a newcomer to an auction will likely struggle to understand the garbled pre-action announcements or their significance. Whether the old regulations are to be replaced with new, clearer rules remains to be seen.

EUROPE

Greece and UK to Discuss Rehoming of Displaced Parthenon Marbles

The Parthenon marbles, also known as the Elgin marbles, have been on display in London’s British Museum for more than 200 years. These objects comprise 15 metopes, 17 pedimental figures and an approximately 250-foot section of a frieze depicting the birthday festivities of the Greek goddess Athena. What museum goers might not know is that these ancient sculptures were taken from the Acropolis in Greece in 1801 by Lord Elgin.

Previously, the British government, seeking to retain the sculptures, relied on the argument that the objects were legally acquired during the Ottoman Empire rule of Greece. However, for the first time, the UK has initiated formal talks with Greece to discuss repatriation of the Parthenon sculptures. These discussions are expected to influence future intergovernmental repatriation negotiations.

ASIA

Singapore High Court Asserts Jurisdiction over NFTs after Ruling Them a Digital Asset

The highest court in Singapore has granted an injunction to a non-fungible token (NFT) investor, Janesh Rajkumar, who sought to stop the sale of an NFT that once belonged to him and was used as collateral for a loan. The subject NFT from the Bored Ape Yacht Club Series is a rarity, as it depicts the only avatar that wears a beanie. Rajkumar now is seeking to repay the loan and have the NFT restored to his cryptocurrency wallet. The loan agreement specified that Rajkumar would not relinquish ownership of the NFT, and should he be unable to repay the loan in a timely manner, an extension would be granted. Instead of granting Rajkumar an extension, the lender, who goes by an alias “chefpierre,” moved to sell the NFT. The significance of the Singapore court’s decision is two-fold: the court has (1) recognized jurisdiction over assets cited in the decentralized blockchain, and (2) allowed for the freezing order to be issued via social media platforms.

THE MIDDLE EAST

Illegal Trading Leads to Raiding of Antique Dealer by the Israeli Authorities

A recent raid on an unauthorized antiquities dealer in the city of Modi’in by the Israel Antiquities Authority recovered hundreds of artifacts of significant historical value, including jewelry, a bronze statue and approximately 1,800 coins. One the coins is a nearly 2,000-year-old silver shekel of great historical significance. The coin is engraved with the name Shimon, leader of the 132–136 C.E. Bar Kokhba revolt.

Investigations are ongoing to determine where the antiquities were obtained. The Antiquities Robbery Prevention Unit intends to charge the dealer and their suppliers upon obtaining this information.

Article By Jana S. Farmer and Meenka Maharaj of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP

For more entertainment, art, and sports news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Wilson Elser

Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act Enters into Force

On June 1, 2022, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (“PDPA”) entered into force after three years of delays. The PDPA, originally enacted in May 2019, provides for a one-year grace period, with the main operative provisions of the law originally set to come into force in 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the Thai government issued royal decrees to extend the compliance deadline to June 1, 2022. 

The PDPA mirrors the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) in many respects. Specifically, it requires data controllers and processors to have a valid legal basis for processing personal data (i.e., data that can identify living natural persons directly or indirectly). If such personal data is sensitive personal data (such as health data, biometric data, race, religion, sexual preference and criminal record), data controllers and processors must ensure that data subjects give explicit consent for any collection, use or disclosure of such data. Exemptions are granted for public interest, contractual obligations, vital interest or compliance with the law.

The PDPA applies both to entities in Thailand and abroad that process personal data for the provision of products or services in Thailand. Like the GDPR, data subjects are guaranteed rights, including the right to be informed, access, rectify and update data; restrict and object to processing; and the right to data erasure and portability. Breaches may result in fines between THB500,000 (U.S.$14,432) and THB5 million, plus punitive compensation. Certain breaches involving sensitive personal data and unlawful disclosure also carry criminal penalties including imprisonment of up to one year.

Article By Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Privacy and Cybersecurity of Hunton Andrews Kurth

For more communications, media & internet news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Small Businesses Don’t Recognize Risk of Cyberattack Despite Repeated Warnings

CNBC surveys over 2,000 small businesses each quarter to get their thoughts on the overall business environment and their small business’ health. According to the latest CNBC/SurveyMonkey Small Business Survey, despite repeated warnings by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the FBI that U.S.- based businesses are at an increased risk of a cyber-attack following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, small business owners do not believe that it is an actual risk that will affect them, and they are not prepared for an attack. The latest survey shows that only five percent of small business owners reported cybersecurity to be the biggest risk to their company.

What is unfortunate, but not surprising, is the fact that this is the same percentage of small business owners who recognized a cyber attack as the biggest risk a year ago. There has been no change in the perception among business owners, even though there are repeated, dire warnings from the government. Also unfortunate is the statistic that only 33 percent of business owners with one to four employees are concerned about a cyber attack this year. In contrast, 61 percent of business owners with more than 50 employees have the same concern.

According to CNBC, “this general lack of concern among small business owners diverges from the sentiment among the general public….In SurveyMonkey’s polling, 55% of people in the U.S. say they would be less likely to continue to do business with brands who are victims of a cyber attack.” CNBC’s conclusion is that there is a disconnect between business owners’ appreciation of how much customers care about data security and that “[s]mall businesses that fail to take the cyber threat seriously risk losing customers, or much more, if a real threat emerges.” Statistics show that threat actors are targeting small to medium-sized businesses to stay under the law enforcement radar. With such a large target on their backs, business owners may wish to make cybersecurity a priority. It’s important to keep customers.

Article By Linn F. Freedman of Robinson & Cole LLP

For more cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

DOJ Limits Application of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Providing Clarity for Ethical Hackers and Employees Paying Bills at Work Alike

On May 19, 2022, the Department of Justice announced it would not charge good-faith hackers who expose weaknesses in computer systems with violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA or Act), 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Congress enacted the CFAA in 1986 to promote computer privacy and cybersecurity and amended the Act several times, most recently in 2008. However, the evolving cybersecurity landscape has left courts and commentators troubled by potential applications of the CFAA to circumstances unrelated to the CFAA’s original purpose, including prosecution of so-called “white hat” hackers. The new charging policy, which became effective immediately, seeks to advance the CFAA’s original purpose by clarifying when and how federal prosecutors are authorized to bring charges under the Act.

DOJ to Decline Prosecution of Good-Faith Security Research

The new policy exempts activity of white-hat hackers and states that “the government should decline prosecution if available evidence shows the defendant’s conduct consisted of, and the defendant intended, good-faith security research.” The policy defines “good-faith security research” as “accessing a computer solely for purposes of good-faith testing, investigation, and/or correction of a security flaw or vulnerability, where such activity is carried out in a manner designed to avoid any harm to individuals or the public, and where the information derived from the activity is used primarily to promote the security or safety of the class of devices, machines, or online services to which the accessed computer belongs, or those who use such devices, machines, or online services.”

In practice, this policy appears to provide, for example, protection from federal charges for the type of ethical hacking a St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter performed in 2021. The reporter uncovered security flaws in a Missouri state website that exposed the Social Security numbers of over 100,000 teachers and other school employees. The Missouri governor’s office initiated an investigation into the reporter’s conduct for unauthorized computer access. While the DOJ’s policy would not affect prosecutions under state law, it would preclude federal prosecution for the conduct if determined to be good-faith security research.

The new policy also promises protection from prosecution for certain arguably common but contractually prohibited online conduct, including “[e]mbellishing an online dating profile contrary to the terms of service of the dating website; creating fictional accounts on hiring, housing, or rental websites; using a pseudonym on a social networking site that prohibits them; checking sports scores at work; paying bills at work; or violating an access restriction contained in a term of service.” Such activities resemble the facts of Van Buren v. United States, No. 19-783, which the Supreme Court decided in June 2021. In Van Buren, the 6-3 majority rejected the government’s broad interpretation of the CFAA’s prohibition on “unauthorized access” and held that a police officer who looked up license plate information on a law-enforcement database for personal use—in violation of his employer’s policy but without circumventing any access controls—did not violate the CFAA. The DOJ did not cite Van Buren as the basis for the new policy. Nor did the DOJ identify any another impetus for the change.

To Achieve More Consistent Application of Policy, All Federal Prosecutors Must Consult with Main Justice Before Bringing CFAA Charges

In addition to exempting good-faith security research from prosecution, the new policy specifies the steps for charging violations of the CFAA. To help distinguish between actual good-faith security research and pretextual claims of such research that mask a hacker’s malintent, federal prosecutors must consult with the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) before bringing any charges. If CCIPS recommends declining charges, prosecutors must inform the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (DAG) and may need to obtain approval from the DAG before initiating charges.

Article By Kyle R. Freeny, Linda Ricci, Jena M. Valdetero, and Brittany M. Fisher of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For more data privacy and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

Navigating the Data Privacy Landscape for Autonomous and Connected Vehicles: Implementing Effective Data Security

Autonomous vehicles can be vulnerable to cyber attacks, including those with malicious intent. Identifying an appropriate framework with policies and procedures will help mitigate the risk of a potential attack.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recommends a layered approach to reduce the likelihood of an attack’s success and mitigate ramifications if one does occur. NHTSA’s Cybersecurity Framework is structured around the five principles of identify, protect, detect, respond and recover, and can be used as a basis for developing comprehensive data security policies.

NHTSA goes on to describe how this approach “at the vehicle level” includes:

  • Protective/Preventive Measures and Techniques: These measures, such as isolation of safety-critical control systems networks or encryption, implement hardware and software solutions that lower the likelihood of a successful hack and diminish the potential impact of a successful hack.
  • Real-time Intrusion (Hacking) Detection Measures: These measures continually monitor signatures of potential intrusions in the electronic system architecture.
  • Real-time Response Methods: These measures mitigate the potential adverse effects of a successful hack, preserving the driver’s ability to control the vehicle.
  • Assessment of Solutions: This [analysis] involves methods such as information sharing and analysis of a hack by affected parties, development of a fix, and dissemination of the fix to all relevant stakeholders (such as through an ISAC). This layer ensures that once a potential vulnerability or a hacking technique is identified, information about the issue and potential solutions are quickly shared with other stakeholders.

Other industry associations are also weighing in on best practices, including the Automotive Information Sharing and Analysis Center’s (Auto-ISAC) seven Key Cybersecurity Functions and, from a technology development perspective, SAE International’s J3061, a Cybersecurity Guidebook for Cyber-Physical Vehicle Systems to help AV companies “[minimize] the exploitation of vulnerabilities that can lead to losses, such as financial, operational, privacy, and safety.”

Article By Adam J. Brody, John J. Rolecki, Jeffrey M. Stefan II, Andrea M. Gumushian, and Justin M. Wolber at Varnum LLP

For more transportation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Varnum LLP

Comparing and Contrasting the State Laws: Does Pseudonymized Data Exempt Organizations from Complying with Privacy Rights?

Some organizations are confused as to the impact that pseudonymization has (or does not have) on a privacy compliance program. That confusion largely stems from ambiguity concerning how the term fits into the larger scheme of modern data privacy statutes. For example, aside from the definition, the CCPA only refers to “pseudonymized” on one occasion – within the definition of “research” the CCPA implies that personal information collected by a business should be “pseudonymized and deidentified” or “deidentified and in the aggregate.”[1] The conjunctive reference to research being both pseudonymized “and” deidentified raises the question whether the CCPA lends any independent meaning to the term “pseudonymized.” Specifically, the CCPA assigns a higher threshold of anonymization to the term “deidentified.” As a result, if data is already deidentified it is not clear what additional processing or set of operations is expected to pseudonymize the data. The net result is that while the CCPA introduced the term “pseudonymization” into the American legal lexicon, it did not give it any significant legal effect or status.

Unlike the CCPA, the pseudonymization of data does impact compliance obligations under the data privacy statutes of Virginia, Colorado, and Utah. As the chart below indicates, those statutes do not require that organizations apply access or deletion rights to pseudonymized data, but do imply that other rights (e.g., opt out of sale) do apply to such data. Ambiguity remains as to what impact pseudonymized data has on rights that are not exempted, such as the right to opt out of the sale of personal information. For example, while Virginia does not require an organization to re-identify pseudonymized data, it is unclear how an organization could opt a consumer out of having their pseudonymized data sold without reidentification.

ENDNOTES

[1] Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.140(ab)(2) (West 2021). It should be noted that the reference to pseudonymizing and deidentifying personal information is found within the definition of the word “Research,” as such it is unclear whether the CCPA was attempting to indicate that personal information will not be considered research unless it has been pseudonymized and deidentified, or whether the CCPA is mandating that companies that conduct research must pseudonymize and deidentify. Given that the reference is found within the definition section of the CCPA, the former interpretation seems the most likely intent of the legislature.

[2] The GDPR does not expressly define the term “sale,” nor does it ascribe particular obligations to companies that sell personal information. Selling, however, is implicitly governed by the GDPR as any transfer of personal information from one controller to a second controller would be considered a processing activity for which a lawful purpose would be required pursuant to GDPR Article 6.

[3] Va. Code 59.1-577(B) (2022).

[4] Utah Code Ann. 13-61-303(1)(a) (2022).

[5] Va. Code 59.1-577(D) (2022) (exempting compliance with Va. Code 59.1-573(A)(1) through (4)

[6] C.R.S. 6-1-1307(3) (2022) (exempting compliance with C.R.S. Section 6-1-1306(1)(b) to (1)(e)).

[7] Utah Code Ann. 13-61-303(1)(c) (exempting compliance with Utah Code Ann. 13-61-202(1) through (3)).

[8] Va. Code 59.1-577(D) (2022) (exempting compliance with Va. Code 59.1-573(A)(1) through (4)

[9] C.R.S. 6-1-1307(3) (2022) (exempting compliance with C.R.S. Section 6-1-1306(1)(b) to (1)(e)).

[10] Va. Code 59.1-577(D) (2022) (exempting compliance with Va. Code 59.1-573(A)(1) through (4)

[11] C.R.S. 6-1-1307(3) (2022) (exempting compliance with C.R.S. Section 6-1-1306(1)(b) to (1)(e)).

[12] Utah Code Ann. 13-61-303(1)(c) (exempting compliance with Utah Code Ann. 13-61-202(1) through (3)).

[13] Va. Code 59.1-577(D) (2022) (exempting compliance with Va. Code 59.1-574).

[14] Va. Code 59.1-577(D) (2022) (exempting compliance with Va. Code 59.1-574).

Article By David A. Zetoony of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For more data privacy and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

Alabama Enacts New Telemedicine Law

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey recently signed SB 272 into law, setting forth telemedicine practice standards and abolishing Alabama’s previous “special purpose license” that allowed physicians licensed in other states to practice across state lines into Alabama. The law is effective July 11, 2022.

The law creates a new article in the Code of Alabama (Sections 34-24-701 through 34-24-707 of Chapter 24, Title 34). The statutory language is lengthy, but the key provisions are summarized below.

Medical License

Unless the physician meets an exception to licensure (e.g., peer-to-peer consultations, irregular or infrequent services), a physician must obtain either a full Alabama medical license or a license via the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact in order to provide “telehealth medical services” to a patient located in Alabama.

  • Telehealth medical services means “[d]igital health, telehealth, telemedicine, and the applicable technologies and devices used in the delivery of telehealth. The term does not include incidental communications between a patient and a physician.
  • The term “irregular or infrequent” services refers to “telehealth medical services” occurring less than 10 days in a calendar year or involving fewer than 10 patients in a calendar year.

Defined Terms and Allowable Modalities

  • Telehealth is defined as “[t]he use of electronic and telecommunications technologies, including devices used for digital health, asynchronous and synchronous communications, or other methods, to support a range of medical care and public health services.”
  • Telemedicine is defined as “[a] form of telehealth referring to the provision of medical services by a physician at a distant site to a patient at an originating site via asynchronous or synchronous communications, or other devices that may adequately facilitate and support the appropriate delivery of care.” The term includes digital health, but does not include incidental communications between a patient and a physician.
  • Digital Health is defined as “[t]he delivery of health care services, patient education communications, or public health information via software applications, consumer devices, or other digital media.”
  • Asynchronous is defined as “[t]he electronic exchange of health care documents, images, and information that does not occur in real time, including, but not limited to, the collection and transmission of medical records, clinical data, or laboratory results.”
  • Synchronous is defined as “[t]he real-time exchange of medical information or provision of care between a patient and a physician via audio/visual technologies, audio only technologies, or other means.”

Physician-Patient Relationship

A physician-patient relationship may be formed via telehealth without a prior in-person exam.

Telemedicine Prescribing of Medications and Controlled Substances

A practitioner may prescribe a legend drug, medical supplies, or a controlled substance to a patient via telehealth. However, a prescription for a controlled substance may only be issued if:

  1. The telehealth visit includes synchronous audio or audio-visual communication using HIPAA compliant equipment;
  2. The practitioner has had at least one in-person encounter with the patient within the preceding 12 months; and
  3. The practitioner has established a legitimate medical purpose for issuing the prescription within the preceding 12 months.

In-Person Visit for Unresolved Medical Condition

If a physician or practice group provides telehealth medical services more than 4 times in a 12-month period to the same patient for the same medical condition without resolution, the physician must either see the patient in-person within 12 months or refer the patient to a physician who can provide the in-person care within 12 months. This in-person visit requirement does not apply to the provision of mental health services.

The Alabama Board of Medical Examiners and the Alabama Medical Licensure Commission are currently developing administrative rules in accordance with the new law.

Article By Kristen A. Murphy and Jacqueline N. Acosta of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

SEC Targets Companies Conducting Cryptomining

The SEC recently doubled the size of its Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit.  Since its inception in 2017, the SEC’s Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit has launched more than 80 investigations resulting in over $2 billion in monetary penalties.  With more dedicated investigative attorneys, trial counsel, and fraud analysts, the SEC’s cryptocurrency-related investigations are expected to substantially rise in the months and years ahead.

The tip of the spear will include the areas that the SEC said would be its focus moving forward:

  • crypto asset offerings
  • crypto asset exchanges
  • crypto asset lending and staking products
  • decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms
  • non-fungible tokens (NFTs); and
  • stablecoins

View SEC press release here.

Given the heightened scrutiny, however, even companies outside of the traditional cryptocurrency industry may find themselves subject to enforcement actions and penalties.  For example, the SEC recently announced that it reached a $5.5 million settlement with technology company NVIDIA Corporation for the company’s alleged failure to disclose on its Form 10-Q for fiscal year 2018 that cryptomining was a significant element of its revenue growth. View release here.

NVIDIA is not a cryptocurrency-related company, but rather is a technology company that markets and sells accelerated computing technologies, including graphics processing units (GPUs) for PC gaming, the company’s largest specialized market.  The SEC alleged that, as interest in cryptocurrencies began to increase in 2017, NVIDIA customers increasingly began using gaming GPUs for cryptomining of Ether (ETH), which rose in price from under $10 to nearly $800 between 2017 and 2018.

In its Form 10-Q for fiscal year 2018, despite knowledge (discerned by the SEC from internal company documents and communications) of cryptomining as a significant driver of its GPU sales growth in its gaming division, the SEC alleged that NVIDIA failed to disclose that this growth was largely driven by demand for gaming GPUs to use in cryptomining.  The SEC further alleged that this failure to disclose misled investors about the growth of NVIDIA’s gaming business in violation of Section 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and the disclosure provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

As the SEC steps up its cryptocurrency related investigation and enforcement actions, publicly traded companies must exercise increased diligence in disclosure of activities that touch cryptocurrency assets.   Even internal dialogue about revenues or other disclosable material that touches cryptocurrencies, as happened to NVIDIA, could subject companies to increased scrutiny and significant monetary penalties.

Copyright ©2022 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
For more articles about cryptomining, visit the NLR Financial Institutions & Banking section.