Tag: Cybersecurity

Small and Mid-Sized Businesses Continue to Be Targeted by Cybercriminals

A recent Ponemon Institute study finds that small and mid-sized businesses continue to be targeted by cybercriminals, and are struggling to direct an appropriate amount of resources to combat the attacks.

The Ponemon study finds that 76 percent of the 592 companies surveyed had experienced a cyber-attack in the previous year, up from 70 percent last year. Phishing and social engineering attacks and scams were the most common form of attack reported by 57 percent of the companies,  while 44 percent of those surveyed said the attack came through a malicious website that a user accessed. I attended a meeting of Chief Information Security Officers this week and was shocked at one statistic that was discussed—that a large company filters 97 percent of the email that is directed at its employees every day. That means that only 3 percent of all email that is addressed to users in a company is legitimate business.

A recent Accenture report shows that 43 percent of all cyber-attacks are aimed at small businesses, but only 14 percent of them are prepared to respond. Business insurance company Hiscox estimates that the average cost of a cyber-attack for small companies is $200,000, and that 60 percent of those companies go out of business within six months of the attack.

These statistics confirm what we all know: cyber-attackers are targeting the lowest hanging fruit—small to mid-sized businesses, and municipalities and other governmental entities that are known to have limited resources to invest in cybersecurity defensive tools. Small and mid-sized businesses that cannot devote sufficient resources to protecting their systems and data may wish to consider other ways to limit risk, including prohibiting employees from accessing websites or emails for personal reasons during working hours. This may sound Draconian, but employees are putting companies at risk by surfing the web while at work and clicking on malicious emails that promise free merchandise. Stopping risky digital behavior is no different than prohibiting other forms of risky behavior in the working environment—we’ve just never thought of it this way before.

Up to this point, employers have allowed employees to access their personal phones, emails and websites during working hours. This has contributed to the crisis we now face, with companies often being attacked as a result of their employees’ behavior. No matter how much money is devoted to securing the perimeter, firewalls, spam filters or black listing, employees still cause a large majority of security incidents or breaches because they click on malicious websites or are duped into clicking on a malicious email. We have to figure out how employees can do their jobs while also protecting their employers.

Copyright © 2019 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

For more on cybersecurity, see the National Law Review Communications, Media & Internet law page.

Is Your Iphone Spying on you (Again)?

In the latest installment of this seemingly ongoing tale, Google uncovered (for the second time in a month) security flaws in Apple’s iOS, which put thousands of users at risk of inadvertently installing spyware on their iPhones. For two years.

Google’s team of hackers – working on Project Zero – say the cyberattack occurred when Apple users visited a seemingly genuine webpage, with the spyware then installing itself on their phones. It was capable of then sending the user’s texts, emails, photos, real-time location,  contacts, account details (you get the picture) almost instantaneously back to the perpetrators of the hack (which some reports suggest was a nation state). The hack wasn’t limited to Apple apps either, with reports the malware was able to extract data from WhatsApp, GoogleMaps and Gmail.

For us, the scare factor goes beyond data from our smart devices inadvertently revealing secret locations, or being used against us in court – the data and information the cyberspies could have had access to could wreak absolute havoc on the everyday iPhone users’ (and, the people whose details they have in their phones) lives.

We’re talking about this in past tense because while it was only discovered by Project Zero recently, Apple reportedly fixed the vulnerability without much ado in February this year, by releasing a software update.

So how do you protect yourself from being spied on? It seems there’s no sure-fire way to entirely prevent yourself from becoming a victim, or, if you were a victim of this particular attack, to mitigate the damage. But, according to Apple,  “keeping your software up to date is one of the most important things you can do to maintain your Apple product’s security”. We might not be ignoring those pesky “a new update is available for your phone” messages, anymore.

Copyright 2019 K & L Gates

ARTICLE BY Cameron Abbott and Allison Wallace of K&L Gates.
For more on device cyber-vulnerability, see the National Law Review Communications, Media & Internet law page.

Louisiana Governor Declares Statewide Emergency After Cyber-Attacks Against School Systems

Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards, for the first time in history, declared a statewide cybersecurity emergency last week, following cyber-attacks against several school systems in the state.

By declaring a cybersecurity emergency, the state is able to garner needed resources, including cybersecurity experts from the Louisiana National Guard, State Police, the Office of Technology Services, the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, Louisiana State University, and others to assist school systems in Sabine, Morehouse and Oachita parishes that were compromised with malware attacks.

According to the Governor’s office, although these resources are working on the incident, the threat is ongoing. The Governor established a statewide Cyber Security Commission in 2017 and stated that these incidents against school systems in the State are the reason the Commission was established.

Several states, but not all, have established Cyber Security Commissions or similar public-private partnerships in order to prepare for and respond to cyber-attacks that affect state resources. Setting up the Commission in advance of attacks like the ones that occurred in Louisiana will assist states in responding quickly to these attacks and provide appropriate resources and help to those affected.

Copyright © 2019 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.
This article is by Linn F. Freedman of Robinson & Cole LLP.
For more in cybersecurity issues, please see the Communications, Media & Internet law page on the National Law Review.

DNA Information of Thousands of Individuals Exposed Online for Years

It is being reported that Vitagene, a company that provides DNA testing to provide customers with specific wellness plans through personalized diet and exercise plans based on their biological traits, left more than 3,000 user files publicly accessible on Amazon Web Services servers that were not configured properly.

The information that was involved included customers’ names, dates of birth and genetic information (such as the likelihood of developing medical conditions), as well as contact information and work email addresses. Almost 300 files contained raw genotype DNA that was accessible to the public.

Vitagene has been providing services since 2014 and the records exposed dated between 2015 and 2017. Vitagene was notified of the accessibility of the information on July 1, 2019, and fixed the vulnerability.

Copyright © 2019 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.
This article was written by Linn F. Freedman of  Robinson & Cole LLP.

The California Consumer Privacy Act Series Part 1: Applicability

California’s new privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”), goes into effect on January 1, 2020.  It is the most expansive state privacy law in U.S. history, imposing GDPR-like transparency and individual rights requirements on companies.  The law will impact nearly every entity that handles “personal information” regarding California residents, including (at least for now) employees.  An overview of the CCPA’s applicability is set forth below.

Who will the CCPA impact?

Most of the CCPA’s obligations apply directly to a “business,” which is an entity that:

  1. Handles “personal information” about California residents;
  2. Determines the purposes and means of processing that “personal information”; and
  3. Does business in California, and meets one of the following threshold requirements:

(a) Has annual gross revenues in excess of $25 million;

(b) Annually handles “personal information” regarding at least 50,000 consumers, households, or devices; or

(c) Derives 50% or more of its annual revenue from selling “personal information.”

However, “service providers” that handle “personal information” on behalf of a business and other third parties that receive “personal information” will also be impacted.  As currently written, however, the CCPA does not apply to non-profit organizations.

The CCPA’s three threshold requirements seem relatively straightforward, yet upon examination raise additional questions that will need to be clarified down the road.  For example:

  • Does the 50,000 devices threshold cover devices of California residents only, or apply more broadly?
  • Is the $25 million annual revenue trigger applicable only to revenue derived from California or globally?
  • What timeframe do businesses who suddenly find themselves within the CCPA’s ambit have to bring themselves into compliance with its provisions?

What is “personal information” as defined in the CCPA?

The CCPA defines “personal information” broadly in terms of (a) types of individuals and (b) types of data elements.  First, the term “consumer” refers to, and the CCPA applies to data about, any California resident, which ostensibly includes website visitors, B2B contacts and (at least for now) employees.  It is not limited to B2C customers that actually purchase goods or services.  Second, the data elements that constitute “personal information” term include non-sensitive items that historically have been less regulated in the U.S., such as Internet browsing histories, IP addresses, product preferences, purchasing histories, and inferences drawn from any other types of personal information described in the statute, including:

  • Identifiers such as name, address, phone number, email address;
  • Characteristics of protected classifications under California and federal law;
  • Commercial information such as property records, products purchased, and other consuming history;
  • Biometric information;
  • Internet or other electronic network activity;
  • Geolocation data;
  • Olfactory, audio, and visual information; and
  • Professional or educational information.

Does the CCPA have any exemptions?

The CCPA will apply to a broad number of businesses, covering nearly all commercial entities that do business in California, regardless of whether the business has a physical location or employees in the State.  However, there are some nuanced exemptions.

As a general matter, the exemptions are based on the types of information that a business collects, and not on the industry of the business collecting the information.  These include information that is collected and used wholly outside of California, subject to other state and federal laws, or sold to or from consumer reporting agencies.  Specifically, the excluded categories of “personal information” include:

      1. Activity “wholly outside” California

The CCPA does not apply to conduct that takes place “wholly outside” of California, although it is unclear how such an exemption will apply in practice.  The statute provides that this exemption applies if:

  • The business collects information while the consumer is outside of California;
  • No part of the sale of the consumer’s “personal information” occurs in California; and
  • No “personal information” collected while the consumer is in California is sold.

Determining when a consumer is outside of California when his or her “personal information” is collected will be challenging for businesses.  For example, given that an IP address is expressly included as “personal information” under the law, is a business supposed to do a reverse-lookup to determine whether an individual’s IP address originates in California?

      1. Data subject to other U.S. laws

While the CCPA exempts certain types of information subject to other laws, importantly it does not exempt entities subject to those laws altogether.  Entities subject to these laws are also not exempt from the CCPA’s statutory damages (i.e., no injury necessary) provisions relating to data breaches.  Likewise, some types of information (clarified below) are not exempt from the data breach liability provision.  At a glance, these exemptions appear helpful; however, they may end up making operationalizing the law even more difficult for certain entities.  For example:

  • Protected Health Information (“PHI”) and “Medical Information.” The CCPA exempts all PHI collected by “covered entities” and “business associates” subject to HIPAA and “medical information” subject to California’s analogous law, the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”).  It also exempts any patient information to the extent a “covered entity” or “provider of health care,” respectively, maintains the patient information in the same manner as PHI or “medical information.”  However, many of these entities and their “business associates” collect information beyond what is considered PHI, such as employment records, technical data about website visitors, B2B information, and types of research data.  This data may not be eligible for the CCPA exemption.
  • Clinical Trial Information. The CCPA exempts information collected as part of a clinical trial subject to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, also known as the Common Rule.
  • Financial Information. Information processed pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”) or the California Financial Information Privacy Act (“CalFIPA”) is exempt from the CCPA.  Much like the health-related exemption, this rule does not exempt entities subject to these laws altogether from its requirements to the extent an entity is processing information not expressly subject to GLBA/CalFIPA.  This particular exemption does not apply to the data breach liability provision.
  • Consumer Reporting Information. The CCPA exempts information sold to and from consumer reporting agencies if that information is reported in, or used to generate, a consumer report and use of that information is limited by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
  • Driver Information. The CCPA also exempts information processed pursuant to the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (“DPPA”).  Importantly, entities subject to this law are not altogether exempt and this exemption does not apply to the data breach liability provision.

Moreover, the differences in definitions of relevant terms (e.g., “personal information” under the CCPA versus “nonpublic personal information” under GLBA) are important to consider when assessing relevant obligations and could result in institutions being only partially exempt from CCPA compliance.

 

© Copyright 2019 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
This post was written by India K. Scarver and Elliot Golding    of Squire Patton Boggs.         

US Government Recommends Office 365 Security Advice including the use of MFA (Multi-Factor Authentication)!

Bleepingcomputer.com reported that the “Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a set of best practices designed to help organizations to mitigate risks and vulnerabilities associated with migrating their email services to Microsoft Office 365.”  The May 13, 2019 report entitled “U.S. Govt Issues Microsoft Office 365 Security Best Practices” included these following examples of Microsoft Office 365 configuration vulnerabilities in its AR19-133A analysis report from CISA:

Multi-factor authentication for administrator accounts not enabled by default: Azure Active Directory (AD) Global Administrators in an O365 environment have the highest level of administrator privileges at the tenant level. Multi-factor authentication (MFA) is not enabled by default for these accounts.

Mailbox auditing disabled: O365 mailbox auditing logs actions that mailbox owners, delegates, and administrators perform. Microsoft did not enable auditing by default in O365 prior to January 2019. Customers who procured their O365 environment before 2019 had to explicitly enable mailbox auditing.

Password sync enabled: Azure AD Connect integrates on-premises environments with Azure AD when customers migrate to O365. If this option is enabled, the password from on-premises overwrites the password in Azure AD. In this particular situation, if the on-premises AD identity is compromised, then an attacker could move laterally to the cloud when the sync occurs.

Authentication unsupported by legacy protocols: Azure AD is the authentication method that O365 uses to authenticate with Exchange Online, which provides email services. There are a number of protocols associated with Exchange Online authentication that do not support modern authentication methods with MFA features. Taking this step will greatly reduce the attack surface for organizations.

Given the widespread use of Office365 this is critical advice!

 

© 2019 Foley & Lardner LLP
This post was written by Peter Vogel of Foley & Lardner LLP.

The Digital Revolution Takes on New Meaning: Among Calls for Heightened U.S. Data Privacy Measures, California is King

California’s ambitious new data privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”),[1] will go into effect on January 1, 2020, and promises to bring a new era of digital regulation to America’s shores. Financial institutions that just navigated their way through implementing the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”),[2] which became effective in May 2018,[3] may be uneasy about the prospect of complying with yet another new data privacy compliance regime. They will find some comfort in the fact that many of the systems and processes designed for GDPR compliance will serve their needs under the CCPA as well. However, between now and the go-live date of the CCPA, U.S. federal and state laws and regulations are likely to continue to evolve and expand, and financial institutions will need to prepare for CCPA implementation while staying abreast of other fast-moving developments. In this article, we provide some key takeaways for how firms can be as prepared as possible for the continuing evolution of U.S. data privacy law.

  1. The New California Data Privacy Law Will Apply Broadly to Financial Institutions with Customers in California

Financial institutions with customers who are California residents almost certainly fit within the types of businesses to which the CCPA will apply. A “business” subject to the CCPA includes for-profit sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, corporations, associations, or any other legal entities that collect consumers’ personal information and that satisfy one or more of the following criteria:

  • has annual gross revenues in excess of $25 million;

  • alone or in combination annually buys, receives for the business’ commercial purposes, sells, or shares for commercial purposes, alone or in combination, the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices; or

  • derives 50% or more of its annual revenue from selling consumers’ personal information.[4]

The CCPA also applies to legal entities that control or are controlled by a CCPA-covered business, and where the two legal entities share common branding (such as a shared name, servicemark, or trademark).[5]

For U.S. businesses seeking to remain outside the purview of the CCPA, the available carve-out is extremely narrow. Businesses that collect or sell the personal information of a California resident are exempt from the CCPA only if “every aspect of that commercial conduct takes place wholly outside of California.” This requires that (a) the personal information must have been collected when the consumer was outside of California, (b) no part of the sale of the consumer’s personal information occurred in California, and (c) no personal information collected while the consumer was in California was sold. In practice, this means that any firm with a website or other digital presence visited by California residents will likely be ensnared by the CCPA even if they lack employees or a physical presence in the state.[6]

Businesses that fail to comply with the CCPA are subject to the possibility of a state enforcement action and consumer lawsuits (available only after providing notice to the business and the business fails to cure the violation within 30 days).[7] However, unlike the GDPR which can impose fines calculated as a factor of global revenue, the CCPA assesses penalties of up to $2,500 per violation and up to $7,500 per intentional violation.[8]

  1. California’s Expansive Concept of “Personal Information” Is Similar to the GDPR

When determining what consumer data will constitute personal information under the CCPA, firms can look to certain similarities with the GDPR.

Under the CCPA, “personal information” means “information that identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household.” This includes, but is not limited to, names, addresses, identification number (such as social security, driver’s license, or passport), email address, and Internet Protocol (IP) address. It also includes biometric information, internet activity information (such as web browser or search history, or information regarding a consumer’s interaction with a website), geolocation data, and employment-related or education information.[9] This definition is largely consistent with how the GDPR broadly defines “personal data” for residents of the EU.[10]

The CCPA does not apply to data that has been “deidentified,” which means personal information that cannot reasonably identify, relate to, describe, or be linked to a particular consumer.[11] This is akin to the GDPR’s exclusion for “anonymized” data which cannot be used to identify a data subject. In addition, the CCPA does not apply to “aggregate consumer information,” which is information that relates to a group or category of consumers, from which individual consumer identities have been removed, that is not linked or reasonably linkable to any consumer or household or device.[12]

One difference between the two regimes, however, is that the CCPA’s definition of personal information excludes “publicly available” information, which is information that is lawfully made available from federal, state, or local government records.[13] The GDPR does not have a similar exception and instead provides the same protections to personal data regardless of its source.

  • California Consumers Will Enjoy a New Bill of Rights Protecting their Personal Information

Another similarity between the CCPA and the GDPR is the recognition of several fundamental rights that consumers will soon enjoy relating to the collection, use, and sale of their personal information. Under the CCPA, these can effectively be described as:

  • Right of Disclosure. A business that collects a consumer’s personal information will be required, at or before the point of collection, to inform consumers as to the categories of personal information to be collected and the purposes for which the categories of personal information will be used.[14] A consumer, e., a “natural person who is a California resident,” will also have the right to request such a business disclose to that consumer the categories and specific pieces of personal information the business has collected.[15] Such a request must be complied with promptly, by mail or electronically, and free of charge to the consumer; however, businesses will not be required to provide such information per consumer request more than twice in a 12-month period.[16] Together with this right, consumers will also have the ability to request the business or commercial purpose for collecting or selling personal information, and the categories of third parties with whom the business shares personal information.[17] Finally, consumers will have the right to request that a business that sells the consumer’s personal information, or discloses it for a business purpose, disclose what personal information was collected and the categories of third parties to whom it was sold.[18]

  • Right of Deletion. A consumer will have the right to request that a business delete any personal information about the consumer which the business has collected from the consumer.[19] If a business has received such a request, it will be required not only to delete the consumer’s personal information from its records, but also to direct any service providers to do the same.[20] This obligation to delete personal information at consumer request is subject to several exceptions, including for the completion of a financial transaction, to detect security incidents or debug errors, and to comply with legal obligations.[21]

  • Right to “Opt Out.” A consumer will have the right to direct a business that sells personal information about the consumer to third parties not to sell the consumer’s personal information going forward.[22] Once a business has received such an instruction from a consumer, it may not resume selling that consumer’s personal information unless express authorized to do so.[23] This right of a consumer to “opt out” must be clearly communicated to consumers on a business’ website under a banner titled “Do Not Sell My Personal Information,” with an accompanying link that enables a customer to opt out of the sale of the consumer’s personal information.[24]

  • Right to Non-Discrimination. Businesses will be prohibited from discriminating against consumers who exercise their various rights under the CCPA by denying them goods or services, charging different prices, or providing a different level or quality of goods or services.[25]

  1. Financial Institutions Should Not Expect a Complete Carve-Out Under Federal Law

The CCPA will not apply to personal information that is collected, processed, sold, or disclosed under certain federal laws.[26] One such law is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”),[27] which covers financial institutions that offer consumers financial products, like banks, and contains its own consumer privacy-related protections.[28] However, this is not a complete exception because the CCPA defines personal information far more broadly than the financial-transaction-related data contemplated by the GLBA, and includes such data as browser history and IP address. As a result, firms will need to contemplate what personal information they collect in addition to what is captured under the GLBA and be prepared to protect it accordingly under the CCPA.

  1. Conclusion

California may be the next big word on U.S. data privacy legislation, but it is unlikely to be the last. In recent years, Congress and other states have faced increased pressure to explore new cybersecurity and data privacy legislation due to a multitude of factors including a growing awareness of how businesses collect and use personal information as seen with Cambridge Analytica’s use of Facebook data, and public frustration with companies’ perceived lackluster responses to major customer data breaches.[29] A recent report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office further highlights America’s growing appetite for GDPR-like legislation, calling it an “appropriate time for Congress to consider comprehensive Internet privacy legislation.”[30]  And while the last Congress failed to enact any new national data privacy legislation into law, both the House and Senate have held hearings recently to receive testimony on guiding principles for a potential federal data privacy law, with a key question being whether any such law should preempt state laws like the CCPA.[31] So while a full-blown U.S. equivalent of the GDPR may not yet be in the cards, the current mood among the public and among lawmakers points in the direction of more rather than less intensive data privacy rules to come.

1  SB-1121 California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (Sept. 24, 2018), 

2 European Commission, General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) of the European Parliament.

3  See Joseph Moreno et al., The EU’s New Data Protection Regulation – Are Your Cybersecurity and Data Protection Measures up to Scratch?, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP (Mar. 6, 2017), .

4   Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.140(c)(1).

5   § 1798.140(c)(2).

6   § 1798.145(a)(6).

7   § 1798.150(b).

8   § 1798.155(b).

9   § 1798.140(o)(1).

10  Article 4 of the GDPR defines “personal data” as “any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person.”

11  § 1798.140(h).

12  § 1798.140(a).

13  § 1798.140(o)(2). Under the CCPA, personal information loses its “publically available” designation if that data is “used for a purpose that is not compatible with the purpose for which the data is maintained and made available in the government records or for which it is publicly maintained.” Id.

14  § 1798.100(b).

15  § 1798.100(a).

16  § 1798.100(d).

17  § 1798.110(a).

18  § 1798.115(a).

19  § 1798.105(a).

20  § 1798.105(c).

21  § 1798.105(d).

22  § 1798.120(a).

23  § 1798.120(c).

24  § 1798.135(a)(1).

25  § 1798.125(a)(1).

26  § 1798.145(e).

27  15 U.S.C. §§ 6801-6809, 6821-6827.

28  Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Summary of Provisions.

29  See Joseph Moreno, States Respond to Equifax Cyber Breach with Enforcement Actions and Calls for Enhanced Regulatory Powers, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP (Oct. 13, 2017).

30  United States Government Accountability Office, Internet Privacy Additional Federal Authority Could Enhance Consumer Protection and Provide Flexibility (Jan. 2019), https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/696437.pdf.

31  U.S. House Committee on Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection & Commerce, Hearing on “Protecting Consumer Privacy in the Era of Big Data”(Feb. 26, 2019), ; U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Policy Principles for a Federal Data Privacy Framework in the United States (Feb. 27, 2019), ; Alfred Ng, At Hearing on Federal Data-Privacy Law, Debate Flares Over State Rules, CNET (Feb. 26, 2019), ; Daniel R. Stoller, New FTC Powers Weighed in Senate Data Privacy Hearing (1), Bloomberg Law (Feb. 27, 2019), .

 

© Copyright 2019 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

California AG Announces Amendment to the CCPA

On February 25, 2019, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson introduced Senate Bill 561, legislation intended to strengthen and clarify the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which was enacted in June of 2018. If enacted, this would be the second amendment to the CCPA, following an earlier amendment in September of 2018 that Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bill 1121, which also clarified and strengthened the original version of the law.

As we reported previously, the CCPA will apply to any entity that does business in the State of California and satisfies one or more of the following: (i) annual gross revenue in excess of $25 million, (ii) alone or in combination, annually buys, receives for the business’ commercial purposes, sells, or shares for commercial purposes, alone or in combination, the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices, or (iii) derives 50 percent or more of its annual revenues from selling consumers’ personal information. Under the CCPA, key consumer rights will include:

  • A consumer’s right to request deletion of personal information which would require the business to delete information upon receipt of a verified request;
  • A consumer’s right to request that a business that sells the consumer’s personal information, or discloses it for a business purpose, disclose the categories of information that it collects and categories of information and 3rd parties to which the information was sold or disclosed;
  • A consumer’s right to opt-out of the sale of personal information by a business and prohibiting the business from discriminating against the consumer for exercising this right, including a prohibition on charging the consumer who opts-out a different price or providing the consumer a different quality of goods or services, except if the difference is reasonably related to value provided by the consumer’s data.

SB 561’s amendments include:

  • Expands a consumer’s right to bring a private cause of action. Currently, the CCPA provides consumer a private right of action if their nonencrypted or nonredacted personal information is subject to an unauthorized access and exfiltration, theft, or disclosure because the covered business did not meet its duty to implement and maintain reasonable safeguards to protect that information. The amendment broadens this provision to grant consumers a private right of action if their rights under the CCPA are violated.
  • Removes language that allows businesses the opportunity to cure an alleged violation within 30-days after being notified of alleged noncompliance.
  • Removes language allowing a business or third party to seek the opinion of the Attorney General for guidance on how to comply with the law. Instead, the amendment specifies that the Attorney General may publish materials that provide businesses and others with general guidance on how to comply with the law.

With an effective date of January 1, 2020 (and regulations not yet proposed), it is expected that additional amendments will be negotiated, drafted, and published. Last month, the California Attorney General’s Office began the CCPA rulemaking process with a six-part series of public forums, allowing all interested persons the opportunity to provide their comments on the new law.

SB 561 comes just days after the AG Becerra together with Assemblymember Mark Levine announced Assembly Bill 1130 to strengthen California’s existing data breach notification law. No doubt, California is leading the way in U.S. data privacy and security law.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2019.

This post was written by  Joseph J. Lazzarotti   , Jason C. Gavejian and Maya Atrakchi

Google Fined $57 Million in First Major Enforcement of GDPR Against a US-based Company

On January 21, 2019, Google was fined nearly $57 million (approximately 50 million euros) by France’s Data Protection Authority, CNIL, for an alleged violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).[1] CNIL found Google violated the GDPR based on a lack of transparency, inadequate information, and lack of valid consent regarding ad personalization. This fine is the largest imposed under the GDPR since it went into effect in May 2018 and the first to be imposed on a U.S.-based company.

CNIL began investigating Google’s practices based on complaints received from two GDPR consumer privacy rights organizations alleging Google did not have a valid legal basis to process the personal data of the users of its services, particularly for Google’s personalized advertisement purposes. The first of the complaints was filed on May 25, 2018, the effective date of the GDPR.

Following its investigation, CNIL found the general structure of the information required to be disclosed by Google relating to its processing of users’ information was “excessively disseminated across several documents.” CNIL stated the relevant information pertaining to privacy rights was only available after several steps, which sometimes required up to five or six actions. Moreover, CNIL indicated users were not able to fully understand the extent of the processing operations carried out by Google because the operations were described in a “too generic and vague manner.” Additionally, the regulator determined information regarding the retention period was not provided for some data collected by Google.

Google’s process for obtaining user consent to data collection for advertisement personalization was also alleged to be problematic under the GDPR. CNIL stated Google users’ consent was not considered to be sufficiently informed due to the information on processing operations for advertisement being spread across several documents. The consent obtained by Google was not deemed to be specific to any individual Google service, and CNIL determined it was impossible for the user to be aware of the extent of the data processed and combined.

Finally, CNIL determined the user consent captured by Google was not “specific” or “unambiguous” as these terms are defined by the GDPR. By way of example, CNIL noted that Google’s users were asked to click the boxes «I agree to Google’s Terms of Service» and «I agree to the processing of my information as described above and further explained in the Privacy Policy» in order to create the account. As a result, the user was required to give consent, in full, for all processing operations purposes carried out by Google based on this consent, rather than for distinct purposes, as required under the GDPR. Additionally, the CNIL commented Google’s checkbox used to capture user consent relating to ad personalization was “pre-clicked.” The GDPR requires consent to be “unambiguous,” with clear affirmative action from the user, which according to the CNIL, required clicking an unclicked box.

This fine may be appealed by Google, which indicated it remained committed to meeting the “high standards of transparency and control” expected by its users and to complying with the consent requirements of the GDPR. Google indicated it would study the decision to determine next steps. Given Google is the first U.S.-based company against whom a DPA has attempted GDPR enforcement, in combination with the size of the fine imposed, it will be interesting to watch how Google responds.

The GDPR enforcement action against Google should be seen as a message to all U.S.-based organizations that collect the data of citizens of the European Union. Companies should review their privacy policies, practices, and end-user agreements to ensure they are compliant with the consent requirements of the GDPR.

© 2019 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.
This post was written by Matthew S. Arend and Jared M. Bruce of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.

Get a Head Start in 2019 – Leveraging Your Cyber Liability Insurance

As 2019 begins, companies should seriously consider the financial and reputational impacts of cyber incidents and invest in sufficient and appropriate cyber liability coverage. According to a recent published report, incidents of lost personal information (such as protected health information) are on the rise and are significantly costing companies. Although cyber liability insurance is not new, many companies lack sufficient coverage. RSM US LLP, NetDiligence 2018 Cyber Claims Study (2018).

According to the 2018 study, cyber claims are impacting companies of all sizes with revenues ranging from less than $50 million to more than $100 billion.  Further, the average total breach cost alone is $603.9K. This does not include crisis services cost (average $307K), the legal costs (defense = $106K; settlement = $224K; regulatory defense = $514K; regulatory fines = $18K), and the cost of business interruption (all costs = $2M; recovery expense = $957K).  In addition to these financial costs, reputational impact stemming from cyber incidents can materially set companies back for a long period of time after the incident.

Companies can reduce risk associated with cyber incidents by developing and implementing privacy and security policies, educating and training employees, and building strong security infrastructures.  Nevertheless, there is no such thing as 100% security, and thus companies should consider leveraging cyber liability insurance to offset residual risks.  With that said, cyber liability coverages vary across issuers and can contain many carve-outs and other complexities that can prevent or reduce coverage.  Therefore, stakeholders should review their cyber liability policies to ensure that they understand the terms and conditions of such policies. Key items to evaluate can include: coverage levels per claim and in the aggregate, retention amounts, notice requirements, exclusions, and whether liability arising from malicious third party conduct are sufficiently covered.

While cyber liability insurance will not practically reduce risk or a cyber incident, it is increasingly a critical component of a holistic risk mitigation strategy given the world we live in.

©2019 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.
This post was written by Alaap B. Shah and Daniel Kim from Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.