cybersecurity Archives - Page 7 of 30 - The National Law Forum

Draft SEC Five-Year Strategic Plan Emphasizes Importance of Climate Disclosures

Recently, the SEC issued its five-year strategic plan for public comment. This strategic plan covers a wide variety of topics, ranging from adapting to new technology to plans for increasing internal SEC workforce diversity. Significantly, this draft strategic plan stated that “the SEC must update its disclosure framework,” and highlighted three areas in which it should do so: “issuers’ climate risks, cybersecurity hygiene policies, and their most important asset: their people.”

The SEC has already undertaken steps to enact these proposed updates to its disclosure requirements for public companies. Notably, this past March it proposed draft climate disclosure rules, which provoked a significant response from the public–including widespread criticism from many companies (as well as praise from environmental organizations). The fact that the SEC chose to highlight these rules in its (draft) five-year strategic plan indicates the depth of the commitment it has made to these draft climate disclosures, and further suggests that the final form of the climate disclosures is unlikely to be significantly altered in substance from what the SEC has already proposed. This statement reinforces the commitment of Chairman Gensler’s SEC and the Biden Administration to financial disclosures as a method to combat climate change.

“The markets have begun to embrace the necessity of providing a greater level of disclosure to investors. From time to time, the SEC must update its disclosure framework to reflect investor demand. Today, investors increasingly seek information related to, among other things, issuers’ climate risks, cybersecurity hygiene policies, and their most important asset: their people. In order to catch up to that reality, the agency should continue to update the disclosure framework to address these areas of investor demand, as well as continue to take concrete steps to modernize the systems that support the disclosure framework, to make public disclosures easier to access and analyze and thus more decision-useful to investors. . . . Across the agency, the SEC must continually reassess its risks, including in new areas such as climate risk, and document necessary controls.”

Article By Jacob H. Hupart of Mintz

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

What’s in the American Data Privacy and Protection Act?

Congress is considering omnibus privacy legislation, and it reportedly has bipartisan support. If passed, this would be a massive shake-up for American consumer privacy, which has been left to the states up to this point. So, how does the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA) stack up against existing privacy legislation such as the California Consumer Privacy Act and the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act?

The ADPPA includes a much broader definition of sensitive data than we’ve seen in state-level laws. Some notable inclusions are income level, voicemails and text messages, calendar information, data relating to a known child under the age of 17, and depictions of an individual’s “undergarment-clad” private area. These enumerated categories go much further than recent state laws, which tend to focus on health and demographic information. One asterisk though – unlike other state laws, the ADPPA only considers sexual orientation information to be sensitive when it is “inconsistent with the individual’s reasonable expectation” of disclosure. It’s unclear at this point, for example, if a member of the LGBTQ+ community who is out to friends would have a “reasonable expectation” not to be outed to their employer.

Like the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, the ADPPA includes a duty of data minimization on covered entities (the ADPPA borrows the term “covered entity” from HIPAA). There is a laundry list of exceptions to this rule, including one for using data collected prior to passage “to conduct internal research.” Companies used to kitchen-sink analytics practices may appreciate this savings clause as they adjust to making do with less access to consumer data.

Another innovation is a tiered applicability, in which all commercial entities are “covered entities,” but “large data holders” – those making over $250,000,000 gross revenue and that process either 5,000,000 individuals’ data or 200,000 individuals’ sensitive data – are subject to additional requirements and limitations, while “small businesses” enjoy additional exemptions. Until now, state consumer privacy laws have made applicability an all-or-nothing proposition. All covered entities, though, would be required to comply with browser opt-out signals, following a trend started by the California Privacy Protection Agency’s recent draft regulations. Additionally, individuals have a private right of action against covered entities to seek monetary and injunctive relief.

Finally, and controversially, the ADPPA explicitly preempts all state privacy laws. It makes sense – the globalized nature of the internet means that any less-stringent state law would become the exception that kills the rule. Still, companies that only recently finalized CCPA- and CPRA-compliance programs won’t appreciate being sent back to the drawing board.

Read the bill for yourself here.

Article By Blair Robinson, a non-lawyer intern in the Data Privacy & Cybersecurity Practice Group at Robinson & Cole LLP

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

Judge Approves $92 Million TikTok Settlement

On July 28, 2022, a federal judge approved TikTok’s $92 million class action settlement of various privacy claims made under state and federal law. The agreement will resolve litigation that began in 2019 and involved claims that TikTok, owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) and the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”) by improperly harvesting users’ personal data. U.S. District Court Judge John Lee of the Northern District of Illinois also awarded approximately $29 million in fees to class counsel.

The class action claimants alleged that TikTok violated BIPA by collecting users’ faceprints without their consent and violated the VPPA by disclosing personally identifiable information about the videos people watched. The settlement agreement also provides for several forms of injunctive relief, including:

Refraining from collecting and storing biometric information, collecting geolocation data and collecting information from users’ clipboards, unless this is expressly disclosed in TikTok’s privacy policy and done in accordance with all applicable laws;
Not transmitting or storing U.S. user data outside of the U.S., unless this is expressly disclosed in TikTok’s privacy policy and done in accordance with all applicable laws;
No longer pre-uploading U.S. user generated content, unless this is expressly disclosed in TikTok’s privacy policy and done in accordance with all applicable laws;
Deleting all pre-uploaded user generated content from users who did not save or post the content; and
Training all employees and contractors on compliance with data privacy laws and company procedures.

Article By the Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group at Hunton Andrews Kurth

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

Are You Ready for 2023? New Privacy Laws To Take Effect Next Year

Five new state omnibus privacy laws have been passed and will go into effect in 2023. Organizations should review their privacy practices and prepare for compliance with these new privacy laws.

What’s Happening?

While the US currently does not have a federal omnibus privacy law, states are beginning to pass privacy laws to address the processing of personal data. While California is the first state with an omnibus privacy law, it has now updated its law, and four additional states have joined in passing privacy legislation: Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and Virginia. Read below to find out if the respective new laws will apply to your organization.

Which Organizations Must Comply?

The respective privacy laws will apply to organizations that meet particular thresholds. Notably, while most of the laws apply to for-profit businesses, we note that the Colorado Privacy Act also applies to non-profits. There are additional scope and exemptions to consider, but we provide a list of the applicable thresholds below.

The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) – Effective January 1, 2023

The CPRA applies to for-profit businesses that do business in California and meet any of the following:

Have a gross annual revenue of over $25 million;
Buy, receive, or sell the personal data of 100,000 or more California residents or households; or
Derive 50% or more of their annual revenue from selling or sharing California residents’ personal data.

Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (CDPA) – Effective January 1, 2023

The CDPA applies to businesses in Virginia, or businesses that produce products or services that are targeted to residents of Virginia, and that:

During a calendar year, control or process the personal data of at least 100,000 Virginia residents, or
Control or process personal data of at least 25,000 Virginia residents and derive over 50% of gross revenue from the sale of personal data.

Colorado Privacy Act (CPA) – Effective July 1, 2023

The CPA applies to organizations that conduct business in Colorado or produce or deliver commercial products or services targeted to residents of Colorado and satisfy one of the following thresholds:

Control or process the personal data of 100,000 Colorado residents or more during a calendar year, or
Derive revenue or receive a discount on the price of goods or services from the sale of personal data, and process or control the personal data of 25,000 Colorado residents or more.

Connecticut Act Concerning Personal Data Privacy and Online Monitoring (CTPDA) – Effective July 1, 2023

The CTPDA applies to any business that conducts business in the state, or produces a product or service targeted to residents of the state, and meets one of the following thresholds:

During a calendar year, controls or processes personal data of 100,000 or more Connecticut residents, or
Derives over 25% of gross revenue from the sale of personal data and controls or processes personal data of 25,000 or more Connecticut residents.

Utah Consumer Privacy Act (UCPA) – Effective December 31, 2023

The UCPA applies to any business that conducts business in the state, or produces a product or service targeted to residents of the state, has annual revenue of $25,000,000 or more, and meets one of the following thresholds:

During a calendar year, controls or processes personal data of 100,000 or more Utah residents, or
Derives over 50% of the gross revenue from the sale of personal data and controls or processes personal data of 25,000 or more Utah residents.

The Takeaway

Organizations that fall under the scope of these respective new privacy laws should review and prepare their privacy programs. The list of updates may involve:

Making updates to privacy policies,
Implementing data subject request procedures,
How your business is handling AdTech, marketing, and cookies,
Reviewing and updating data processing agreements,
Reviewing data security standards, and
Providing training for employees.

Article By Eva J. Pulliam, Christine Chong, and Destiny Planter of ArentFox Schiff LLP

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

Federal Bill Would Broaden FTC’s Role in Cybersecurity and Data Breach Disclosures

Last week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced H.R. 4551, the “Reporting Attacks from Nations Selected for Oversight and Monitoring Web Attacks and Ransomware from Enemies Act” (“RANSOMWARE Act”). H.R. 4551 was introduced by Consumer Protection and Commerce Ranking Member Gus Bilirakis (R-FL).

If it becomes law, H.R. 4551 would amend Section 14 of the U.S. SAFE WEB Act of 2006 to require not later than one year after its enactment, and every two years thereafter, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to transmit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report (the “FTC Report”). The FTC Report would be focused on cross-border complaints received that involve ransomware or other cyber-related attacks committed by (i) Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran; or (ii) individuals or companies that are located in or have ties (direct or indirect) to those countries (collectively, the “Specified Entities”).

Among other matters, the FTC Report would include:

The number and details of cross-border complaints received by the FTC (including which such complaints were acted upon and which such complaints were not acted upon) that involve ransomware or other cyber-related attacks that were committed by the Specified Entities;
A description of trends in the number of cross-border complaints received by the FTC that relate to incidents that were committed by the Specified Entities;
Identification and details of foreign agencies, including foreign law enforcement agencies, located in Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran with which the FTC has cooperated and the results of such cooperation, including any foreign agency enforcement action or lack thereof;
A description of FTC litigation, in relation to cross-border complaints, brought in foreign courts and the results of such litigation;
Any recommendations for legislation that may advance the security of the United States and United States companies against ransomware and other cyber-related attacks; and
Any recommendations for United States citizens and United States businesses to implement best practices on mitigating ransomware and other cyber-related attacks

Cybersecurity is an area of recent federal government focus, with other measures recently taken by President Biden, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and other stakeholders.

Additionally, H.R. 4551 is also consistent with the FTC’s focus on data privacy and cybersecurity. The FTC has increasingly taken enforcement action against entities that failed to timely notify consumers and other relevant parties after data breaches and warned that it would continue to apply heightened scrutiny to unfair data security practices.

In May 2022, in a blog post titled “Security Beyond Prevention: The Importance of Effective Breach Disclosures,” the FTC’s Division of Privacy and Identity Protection had cautioned that “[t]he FTC has long stressed the importance of good incident response and breach disclosure as part of a reasonable information security program, and that, “[i]n some instances, the FTC Act creates a de facto breach disclosure requirement because the failure to disclose will, for example, increase the likelihood that affected parties will suffer harm.”

As readers of CPW know, state breach notification laws and sector-specific federal breach notification laws may require disclosure of some breaches. However, as of May 2022 it is now expressly the position of the FTC that “[r]egardless of whether a breach notification law applies, a breached entity that fails to disclose information to help parties mitigate reasonably foreseeable harm may violate Section 5 of the FTC Act.” This is a significant development, as notwithstanding the absence of a uniform federal data breach statute, the FTC is anticipated to continue exercise its enforcement discretion under Section 5 concerning unfair and deceptive practices in the cybersecurity context.

Article By Kristin L. Bryan and Jeffrey L. Turner of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

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

A Rule 37 Refresher – As Applied to a Ransomware Attack

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) (“Rule 37”) was completely rewritten in the 2015 amendments. Before the 2015 amendments, the standard was that a party could not generally be sanctioned for data loss as a result of the routine, good faith operation of its system. That rule didn’t really capture the reality of all of the potential scenarios related to data issues nor did it provide the requisite guidance to attorneys and parties.

The new rule added a dimension of reasonableness to preservation and a roadmap for analysis. The first guidepost is whether the information should have been preserved. This rule is based upon the common law duty to preserve when litigation is likely. The next guidepost is whether the data loss resulted from a failure to take reasonable steps to preserve. The final guidepost is whether or not the lost data can be restored or replaced through additional discovery. If there is data that should have been preserved, that was lost because of failure to preserve, and that can’t be replicated, then the court has two additional decisions to make: (1) was there prejudice to another party from the loss OR (2) was there an intent to deprive another party of the information. If the former, the court may only impose measures “no greater than necessary” to cure the prejudice. If the latter, the court may take a variety of extreme measures, including dismissal of the action. An important distinction was created in the rule between negligence and intention.

So how does a ransomware attack fit into the new analytical framework? A Special Master in MasterObjects, Inc. v. Amazon.com (U.S. Dist. Court, Northern District of California, March 13, 2022) analyzed Rule 37 in the context of a ransomware attack. MasterObjects was the victim of a well-documented ransomware attack, which precluded the companies access to data prior to 2016. The Special Master considered the declaration from MasterObjects which explained that, despite using state of the art cybersecurity protections, the firm was attacked by hackers in December 2020. The hack rendered all the files/mailboxes inaccessible without a recovery key set by the attackers. The hackers demanded a ransom and the company contacted the FBI. Both the FBI and insurer advised them not to pay the ransom. Despite spending hundreds of hours attempting to restore the data, everything prior to 2016 was inaccessible.

Applying Rule 37, the Special Master stated that, at the outset, there is no evidence that any electronically stored information was “lost.” The data still exists and, while access has been blocked, it can be accessed in the future if a key is provided or a technological work-around is discovered.

Even if a denial of access is construed to be a “loss,” the Special Master found no evidence in this record that the loss occurred because MasterObjects failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it. This step of the analysis, “failure to take reasonable steps to preserve,” is a “critical, basic element” to prove spoliation.

On the issue of prejudice, Amazon argued that “we can’t know what we don’t know” (related to missing documents). The Special Master did not find Amazon’s argument persuasive. The Special Master concluded that Amazon’s argument cannot survive the adoption of Rule 37(e). “The rule requires affirmative proof of prejudice in the specific destruction at issue.”

Takeaways:

If you are in a spoliation dispute, make sure you have the experts and evidence to prove or defend your case.
When you are trying to prove spoliation, know the new test and apply it in your analysis (the Special Master noted that Amazon did not reference Rule 37 in its briefing).
As a business owner, when it comes to cybersecurity, you must take reasonable and defensible efforts to protect your data.

Article By Gretchen E. Moore of Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Gefsky

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

Wegmans Settles With NYAG for $400,000 Over Data Incident

The New York Attorney General recently announced a data security-related settlement with Wegmans Food Markets. The issue arose in April 2021 regarding a cloud-based incident. At that time a security researcher notified Wegmans that the company had an Azure cloud storage container that was unsecured. Upon investigation, the company determined that the container had been misconfigured and that three million customer records had been publicly accessible since 2018. The records included email addresses and account passwords.

Of concern for the AG, among other things, were that the passwords were salted and hashed using SHA-1 hashing, rather than PBKDF2. Similarly, the AG found concerning the fact that the company did not have an asset inventory of what it maintained in the cloud. As a result, no security assessments were conducted of its cloud-based databases. The NYAG also took issue with the company’s lack of long-term logging: logs for its Azure assets were kept for only 30 days. Finally, the company kept checksums derived from customer driver’s license information, something for which the NYAG did not feel the company had a “reasonable business purpose” to collect or maintain.

The NYAG argued that these practices were both deceptive and unlawful in light of the promises Wegman’s made in its privacy policy. It also felt that the practices were a violation of the state’s data security law. As part of the settlement, Wegmans agreed to pay $400,000. It also agreed to implement a written information security program that addresses, among other things:

asset management that covers cloud assets and identifies several items about the asset, including its owner, version, location, and criticality;

access controls for all cloud assets;

penetration testing that takes into account cloud assets, and includes at least one annual test of the cloud environment;

central logging and monitoring for cloud assets, including keeping cloud logs readily accessible for 90 days (and further stored for a year from logged activity);

customer password management that includes hashing algorithms and a salting policy that is at least commensurate with NIST standards and “reasonably anticipated security risks;” and

policies and procedures around data collection and deletion.

Wegmans agreed to have the program assessed within a year of the settlement, with a written report by the third-party assessor provided to the NYAG. It will also conduct at-least-annual reviews of the program. As part of that review it will determine if any changes are needed to better protect and secure personal data.

Putting It Into Practice: This case is a reminder for companies to think not only about assets on its network, but its cloud assets, when designing a security program. Part of these efforts include clearly identifying locations that house personal information (as defined under security and breach laws) and evaluating the security practices and controls in place to protect that information. The security program elements the NYAG has asked for in this settlement signal its expectations of what constitutes a reasonable information security program.

Article By Kari M. Rollins and Liisa M. Thomas of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

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

Italian Garante Bans Google Analytics

On June 23, 2022, Italy’s data protection authority (the “Garante”) determined that a website’s use of the audience measurement tool Google Analytics is not compliant with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), as the tool transfers personal data to the United States, which does not offer an adequate level of data protection. In making this determination, the Garante joins other EU data protection authorities, including the French and Austrian regulators, that also have found use of the tool to be unlawful.

The Garante determined that websites using Google Analytics collected via cookies personal data including user interactions with the website, pages visited, browser information, operating system, screen resolution, selected language, date and time of page views and user device IP address. This information was transferred to the United States without the additional safeguards for personal data required under the GDPR following the Schrems II determination, and therefore faced the possibility of governmental access. In the Garante’s ruling, website operator Caffeina Media S.r.l. was ordered to bring its processing into compliance with the GDPR within 90 days, but the ruling has wider implications as the Garante commented that it had received many “alerts and queries” relating to Google Analytics. It also stated that it called upon “all controllers to verify that the use of cookies and other tracking tools on their websites is compliant with data protection law; this applies in particular to Google Analytics and similar services.”

Article By the Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group at Hunton Andrews Kurth

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

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.

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.

Category: cybersecurity

Draft SEC Five-Year Strategic Plan Emphasizes Importance of Climate Disclosures

Like this:

Judge Approves $92 Million TikTok Settlement

Like this: