The Arizona Legislature has significantly expanded and strengthened the state’s data breach notification law. The legislation was signed by Arizona Governor Doug Ducey on April 11, 2018.

Members of Ballard Spahr’s Privacy and Data Security Group will host a webinar on Wednesday, April 25, 2018, at noon PT/1 p.m. MT/3 p.m. ET to provide in-depth analysis of the new law and place it into context with similar legislation enacted by other states over the past few months. Visit www.ballardspahr.com/AZwebinar to register and for more information.

Below we discuss the most notable changes:

Continue Reading Arizona Strengthens and Expands Data Breach Notification Law

The ACC Foundation will be hosting a webcast on April 18, 2018 at 12:00 EDT to discuss the preliminary results of the Foundation’s State of Cybersecurity Report.  This is the second Report of its kind that the ACC Foundation has published.  You can sign up for the webcast here.

The Report surveyed 600 in-house counsel from around the world on a range of cybersecurity issues including data breach response, information security standards, GDPR preparation, vendor management and cyberinsurance.  The Report provides valuable cybersecurity benchmarking in a range of industries and identifies hot button issues for in-house counsel with responsibility for managing their company’s cybersecurity programs to consider.

Ballard Spahr served as a sponsor for the Report (as it did in 2015 for the first Report).  Phil Yannella, co-chair of Ballard’s Privacy & Data Security Group, served on the Advisory Board for the Report and will participate in the webcast.

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has reinstated a data breach class action filed against Barnes & Noble (B&N).  The litigation, styled as Dieffenbach v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., now heads back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which previously dismissed the complaint three times for lack of standing and/or failure to state a claim.

The lawsuit stems from a September 2012 data breach in which “skimmers” gained access to the payment card readers in B&N stores and siphoned off customer names, payment card numbers, expiration dates, and PINs.  “Skimming” is an ‘old school’ hacking technique involving tampering with the PIN pad terminals to exfiltrate the payment card data that runs through them when a card is swiped.  Payment card data was skimmed from PIN terminals in 63 B&N stores, located in 9 states. Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Reinstates Barnes & Noble Data Breach Class Action

Plaintiff lawyers’ continued search for damage theories to assert in claims arising from a data breach – or fear of a breach – received a potential setback this week when Chief Judge Michael Reagan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois permitted Fiat Chrysler and Harmon International to seek an interlocutory appeal of the court’s earlier ruling in Flynn v. Fiat Chrysler US that class plaintiffs had standing to bring their “car hacking” claims in federal court.  The ruling comes just one month before the scheduled start of trial. Fiat Chrysler and Harmon moved for an appeal after the Ninth Circuit ruled in a similar case, Cahen v. Toyota Motor Corp, that plaintiffs did not have standing to pursue diminution in value damages against Toyota based on a fear that the vehicles were susceptible to hacking.   Continue Reading Fiat Chrysler Car Hacking Case Put In Neutral

In March, we reported that the Oregon legislature was considering amending its data breach notification and information security laws. That legislation has now passed the Oregon legislature and been signed into law by Oregon’s governor.  A copy of the new law is available here. The most notable changes are as follows:

Continue Reading Oregon Amends Data Breach Notification and Information Security Laws

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

Mossack Fonseca, the beleaguered law firm at the center of the international Panama Papers scandal, has announced that it is closing its doors.  The firm cited “reputational deterioration” that has caused “irreversible damage.”

Founded in 1977 by Jurgen Mossack and Ramon Fonseca, Mossack Fonseca had been perched at the top of offshore legal services providers until April 2016, when it became ground zero for a global controversy because approximately 11.5 million of the firm’s internal legal and financial documents were leaked to the media. These leaked documents – publicized primarily by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (“ICIJ”) – allegedly reveal a global system of undisclosed offshore accounts, money laundering and tax evasion, and how the rich and powerful around the world use shell companies to conceal assets and possible illegal activity.

The incident is the largest publicly disclosed data breach involving a law firm. Following the April 2016 publication of data, founding partner Ramon Fonseca and other public sources claimed that the firm’s network had been compromised by hackers sometime in 2015.  Security researchers and other public sources identified numerous unpatched vulnerabilities in Mossack’s website and email server, which could have been very easily compromised by hackers. Approximately 2.6 terabytes of data – including 4.8 million emails, 3 million database files, and 2.1 million.pdf files – were leaked, including client documents dating back to the 1970s.  Approximately one year after the alleged data theft, ICIJ published the Mossack data and set off numerous investigations into the firm and its clients. Continue Reading “Panama Papers” Law Firm Announces Its Closure Due to Fallout from Massive Data Breach

In the absence of federal action, state legislators continue to propose bills that would increase data privacy and security protections for consumers. Any entity that does business in these states or maintains confidential information of their residents should monitor the legislation to determine whether and how the proposed changes may affect operations.

The bills are a reaction to Equifax’s data breach disclosure last summer. In prior alerts and articles, we discussed proposed legislation in Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, and South Dakota. In this post, we examine legislation being considered in Oregon, New York, Alabama, and Rhode Island.

To put the discussion into context, 48 states already have laws requiring entities to notify affected individuals if the entity suffers a loss or compromise of the individuals’ confidential information. Those laws differ in many respects, resulting in a complex web of legal responsibilities that creates headaches for entities required to comply with them.

The challenge will become even more complex if the proposed bills become law, because, generally speaking, they would:

  • expand the types of confidential information covered under state breach notification requirements;
  • implement specific deadlines for when affected individuals must be notified;
  • require businesses to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures to prevent data breaches; and
  • authorize state attorneys general to enforce these provisions through substantial fines and penalties for non-compliance.

Continue Reading Oregon, New York, Alabama, and Rhode Island Join List of States Considering Data Breach Legislation Post-Equifax

Earlier today, the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari in CareFirst v. Attias, a closely watched case that some thought provided the Court with an opportunity to clarify the standing analysis under Spokeo v. Robins in data breach class actions.

In January, we blogged about CareFirst.  We noted that the core issue in the case – whether fear of identity theft flowing from a data breach is an “injury in fact” sufficient to trigger Article III standing – could have major impact on the viability of future data breach class actions. The district court’s finding in favor of CareFirst on the standing issue was reversed and remanded last August by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which held that plaintiffs had alleged a risk of future injury because it was at least “plausible” that the cybercriminals had the intent and ability to use the stolen data for wrongful purposes. CareFirst then filed a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which today denied the petition leaving in place the D.C. Circuit’s ruling in favor of Plaintiffs. Continue Reading Supreme Court Denies Cert Petition in CareFirst v. Attias