With more than double the number of required signatures well ahead of the verification deadline late this month, the citizen-initiated measure “The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018” appears headed for the statewide ballot on November 6. If approved by a majority of Golden State voters, the ballot measure would greatly expand right-to-know and opt-out requirements, subjecting covered businesses to increased costs for compliance and strict liability for any violations.
Colorado has enacted groundbreaking privacy and cybersecurity legislation that will require covered entities to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures, dispose of documents containing confidential information properly, ensure that confidential information is protected when transferred to third parties, and notify affected individuals of data breaches in the shortest time frame in the country. The new law was spearheaded by the Colorado Attorney General’s office, which is charged with enforcing its requirements. As a result of the legislation, covered entities should consider implementing written information security programs, third party vendor management controls, and incident response plans to best position themselves against potential enforcement actions and civil litigation in the future.
Ballard Spahr attorneys David Stauss and Gregory Szewczyk will host a webinar on Monday, June 4, 2018, at noon PT/1 p.m. MT/3 p.m. ET to provide an in-depth analysis of the new law and to discuss what covered entities must do to ensure compliance. Messrs. Stauss and Szewczyk are uniquely situated to discuss the new law, having assisted in developing the legislation, including Mr. Stauss testifying on the bill in front of the House Committee on State, Veterans, & Military Affairs. Click here for more information and to register.
The most notable provisions of the new law are discussed below.
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
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:
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
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:
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.
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
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.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently issued a sweeping ruling “that accessing any information from a cell phone without a warrant” violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Commonwealth v. Fulton, the Court suppressed the warrantless search of the contents of a ‘flip phone’ and reversed a murder conviction that flowed from the unlawful search. The Supreme Court held that the Superior Court’s decision contravened U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014), holding that searches of cell phones generally require a warrant.
In June 2010, Philadelphia Police arrested I. Dean Fulton and three others on suspicion of unlawful drug activity and gun possession. They seized Fulton’s “smart phone” from his body at the time of the arrest. They subsequently obtained a search warrant for the vehicle Fulton and the others were in at the time of their arrests. That search turned up a firearm, a holster, three cell phones and other property. The cell phones – which included one ‘flip phone’ later connected to Fulton –were provided to the Homicide Division, which was investigating a recent drug-related murder. Continue Reading Pennsylvania Supreme Court: If You Want to Search a Cell Phone, Get a Warrant!