In a significant development that could materially increase the liability risk associated with payment card security breaches (and personal data security breaches, in general), the U.S. Court of Appeals 1st Circuit (the "Court of Appeals") held that payment card replacement fees and identity theft insurance/credit monitoring costs are adequately alleged as mitigation damages for purposes of negligence and an implied breach of contract claim. The decision in Hannaford could be a game changer in terms of the legal risk environment related to personal data breaches, and especially payment card breaches where fraud has been perpetrated. In this post, we summarize the key issues and holdings of the Court of Appeals.
Earlier this week we blogged about Senator Blumenthal's (D-CT) proposed Personal Data Protection and Breach Accountability Act of 2011. Today, InfoLawGroup partner Boris Segalis spoke on Fox Live about the advantages of federal information security legislation.
Mr. Kwang Hyun Ryoo, a partner at the Korean law firm of Bae, Kim & Lee LLC, is reporting in the firm's newsletter that on March 29, 2011, Korea enacted a comprehensive personal data protection law, entitled Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). Most of the act's provisions will come into force on September 30, 2011.
In what may be a sign of an evolving judicial atmosphere and approach concerning data breach lawsuits, a Federal judge in the Northern District of California District Court recently refused to dismiss various causes of action related to a data breach involving RockYou. In particular, the Court explored the issue of whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged "harm" arising out of the data breach. This blog post takes a look the highlights of the Court's decision.
The Google Buzz settlement that the Federal Trade Commission announced on March 30, 2011 is the latest in the line of the Commission's numerous Section 5 actions related to privacy and data security violations. The Google Buzz settlement, however, is unique in several important ways. The settlement represents (i) the first FTC settlement order has requires a company to implement a comprehensive privacy program to protect the privacy of consumers' information, and (ii) the Commission's first substantive U.S.-EU Safe Harbor framework enforcement action. Let's dive in (make sure to read the "Action Item" at the conclusion of the post!).
On February 1, 2011, the Department of Energy announced the launch of the Cyber Security Initiative to develop cyber security risk management process guidelines for the electric grid. The Department's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability will lead the effort in collaboration with the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
InfoLawGroup recently discovered a new data breach case, one of the first that we are aware of in the United States, that dives deep into the issue of whether a common law duty exists to safeguard personal information. In Cooney, et. al v. Chicago Public Schools, et. al¸ an Illinois appellate court actually rendered a decision holding that no such duty exists under Illinois law. In this blogpost we take a closer look at the court's rationale for dismissing the plaintiffs' negligence claim, as well as the other interesting holdings of the court.
I hope you will tune in Monday, January 31, 2011, 8-9 am Pacific (11-12 Eastern), to Privacy Piracy, audio streaming on www.kuci.org (or locally in Southern California on KUCI 88.9 FM in Irvine, CA). Mari Frank will interview me on hot topics in information law and compliance.
The Maine Supreme Court has rendered its opinion on the "damages" issue in the Hannaford Bros. consumer security breach lawsuit. Again, the plaintiffs have been unable to establish that they suffered any harm as a result of the Hannaford security breach. Specifically, the Court ruled that "time and effort" alone spent to avoid or remediate reasonably foreseeable harm do not constitute "a cognizable injury for which damages may be recovered." In this blogpost we take a closer look at the Court's rationale.
Manufacturers that fail to comply with the data security notification requirements may receive a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for a first violation; up to $2,500 for a second violation; and up to $5,000 for the third and any following violations within a 12-month period.
We recently published the first part of our FAQ series on Congressman Bobby Rush's new data privacy bill known as "Building Effective Strategies to Promote Responsibility Accountability Choice Transparency Innovation Consumer Expectations and Safeguards Act (a.k.a. "BEST PRACTICES Act" or "Act"). In Part One we looked at some of the key definitions and requirements concerning transparency, notice and individual choice, mandates around accuracy, access and dispute resolution, and finally data security and data minimization requirements under the Act. Part Two will focus on the "Safe Harbor" outlined in the Act, various exemptions for de-identified information and application and enforcement.
Congressman Bobby Rush has introduced a new data privacy bill to Congress known as the "Building Effective Strategies to Promote Responsibility Accountability Choice Transparency Innovation Consumer Expectations and Safeguards" Act (a.k.a. "BEST PRACTICES Act" or "Act").We have put together a summary of the Act in "FAQ" format. In Part One we look at some of the key definitions, requirements concerning transparency, notice and individual choice, mandates around accuracy, access and dispute resolution, and finally data security and data minimization requirements under the Act. Part Two will focus on the "Safe Harbor" outlined in the Act, various exemptions for deidentified information, and provisions concerning the application and enforcement of the Act.