For good reason, there has been much discussion about the new privacy rights created by the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), which becomes effective January 1, 2020. Perhaps one of the most significant provisions of the CCPA, though, will be one that has been somewhat overlooked: Section 1798.150, which provides for statutory damages of between $100 and $750 per consumer per incident for certain data breaches. Indeed, had California enacted Section 1798.150 alone, it would have garnered scores of articles on how its statutory damages remedy will likely lead to an explosion in “bet-the-company” private class action litigation over data breaches. The fact that it was enacted as just one provision in a first-in-the-nation privacy law has resulted in commentators spending less time analyzing its impact on businesses.

We will try to remedy this by taking a look at this provision and analyzing how it will apply to businesses covered by the CCPA. We begin by discussing existing California laws that are referenced in the CCPA’s private right of action. We then track the private right of action through its various forms, starting with the ballot measure and ending with its current version as reflected in Senate Bill 1121. Finally, we discuss how the private right of action likely will be used by private litigants and what steps businesses should take to avoid costly litigation. Continue Reading Analyzing the California Consumer Privacy Act’s Private Right of Action

On November 13, 2018, Ballard Spahr lawyers presented a webinar on the SEC’s recent “Report of Investigation” into “business email compromises” affecting public companies.

As noted in our prior blog post, the Report was prompted by the SEC’s investigation into whether nine public companies violated U.S. securities laws “by failing to have sufficient accounting controls” to prevent approximately $100 million in losses as a result of business email compromises targeting their personnel. The SEC investigated whether these companies violated Sections 13(b)(2)(B)(i) and (iii) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Although declining to pursue enforcement actions against the companies, the SEC emphasized its recent cybersecurity guidance, advising public companies that “[c]ybersecurity risk management policies and procedures are key elements of enterprise-wide risk management, including as it relates to compliance with federal securities laws.” (See our prior alert and blog post regarding the Interpretive Guidance). Continue Reading Listen to Our Webinar on “The SEC’s Special Report on Business Email Compromises: What It Means and What You Should Do”

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has joined the government chorus in sounding the alarm about the rapid rise in “business email compromises” that are victimizing organizations across industry sectors.

On October 16, 2018, the SEC released a “Report of Investigation” calling for public companies to reassess their internal accounting controls “in light of emerging risks, including risks arising from cyber-related frauds.”  In particular, the report focuses on certain types of “business email compromises” (BEC), in which a bad actor uses spoofed or compromised email accounts to trick an organization’s personnel into effectuating wire transfers to financial accounts controlled by fraudsters. Continue Reading SEC Special Report: Rampant Business Email Compromises Require Reassessment of Internal Accounting Controls

One of the most bedeviling aspects of data privacy and security law concerns the concept of “reasonable” data security, which has become the default statutory and common law standard.  The FTC began articulating a reasonableness standard in the early aughts, when the Commission first began scrutinizing companies’ data security practices.  Companies for years quietly grumbled about the vagueness of this standard, which isn’t defined in any regulations or federal statutes. Critics obtained a recent victory when the Eleventh Circuit, in LabMD v. FTC, struck down an FTC judgment on grounds that the relief sought by the FTC against LabMD– implementation of reasonable data security practices — was too vague to be enforceable. Continue Reading What Does “Reasonable” Data Security Mean, Exactly?

Just as many US businesses were scrambling to meet GDPR compliance, California quickly passed a broad new privacy act, giving businesses another privacy compliance headache. We’ve previously blogged on the dramatic history behind the eleventh-hour passage of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), so we won’t rehash that story here.  Instead, the focus of this post will be on the overlap between the CCPA and the GDPR.  Continue Reading Using the GDPR to Comply with the California Consumer Privacy Act

The New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) has adopted a regulation that requires “consumer credit reporting agencies” (“CCRAs”) to register with the NYDFS, prohibits CCRAs from engaging in certain practices, and requires CCRAs to comply with certain provisions of the NYDFS cybersecurity regulation. Continue Reading NYDFS Requires Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies to Comply with Cybersecurity Regulation

Last week, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) published the Spring 2018 Semiannual Risk Perspective (the “Report”), which uses up-to-date data to identify risks to U.S. banks and measure their compliance with applicable laws and regulations.  The Report concluded that some of the OCC’s primary concerns are with the elevation in operational risk “as banks adapt business models, transform technology and operating processes, and respond to evolving cyber threats.”  The Report also focused on elevated compliance risk associated with bank efforts to “manage money-laundering risks in a complex environment.”

Many of the OCC’s observations and recommendations remained the same from its Fall 2017 report, leaving readers to wonder what will spur less conversation and potentially more action among OCC-supervised banks or concrete guidance by the OCC.  Regardless, a common thread running throughout both reports is the potential risk presented to financial institutions by emerging technologies, which carry the simultaneous blessing and curse of greater business opportunities, but also greater operational and compliance risks. Continue Reading OCC Semiannual Risk Perspective Highlights Cybersecurity, Fraud, Money Laundering Concerns

South Carolina has become the first state to enact a version of the Insurance Data Security Model Law, which was drafted by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) in 2017. Governor Henry McMaster signed the South Carolina Insurance Data Security Act into law on May 14, 2018. The Act will become effective on January 1, 2019.

South Carolina Insurance Director Raymond G. Farmer chaired the NAIC Cybersecurity Working Group that drafted the model law. The South Carolina Act appears to follow the Model Law closely, and bears similarities to cybersecurity laws and regulations enacted in other states and at the federal level – including the New York Department of Financial Services cybersecurity regulations, the new Alabama data breach law, and HIPAA/HITECH data security/breach notification requirements. Continue Reading South Carolina Enacts First Insurance Data Security Act

Alabama has officially joined the data breach notification party. Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed Act No. 2018-396 into law on March 28, 2018. The law will take effect on June 1, 2018. Although it was last in the country to enact such a data security law, Alabama’s new law will immediately take its place among the most stringent in the nation.

The Alabama law generally can be categorized into four obligations:

  • All entities subject to the law (covered entities and third-party agents) must “implement and maintain reasonable security measures to protect sensitive personally identifying information against a breach of security.”
  • A “covered entity shall conduct a good faith and prompt investigation” into “a breach of security that has or may have occurred in relation to sensitive personally identifying information.”
  • A covered entity must notify each affected Alabama resident, and a third-party agent must notify the covered entity, of a “breach of security involving sensitive personally identifying information;”
  • A covered entity must notify the Alabama Attorney General and credit reporting agencies of a breach involving more than 1,000 Alabama residents.

Continue Reading Alabama Becomes 50th State to Enact Data Breach Notification Law

South Dakota (site of Ballard’s newest office) has become the 49th State to enact a data breach notification law.  South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard signed SB 62 into law on March 21, 2018.  The law will take effect on July 1, 2018.

As with similar measures pending in other state legislatures, SB 62 was introduced in the South Dakota Senate on January 9, 2018, in the wake of the disclosures relating to the Equifax breaches. The law generally mirrors those of many other states, but includes a few new wrinkles. Continue Reading South Dakota Enacts Data Breach Notification Law