Data Breaches

On 1 April 2020, the UK Supreme Court handed down its ruling in WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12.  The Court ruled that Morrisons was not vicariously liable for a data breach deliberately perpetrated by an employee.  The judgment is significant in that it overturned the decisions of the two lower courts (the High Court and Court of Appeal) and provides guidance for employers on when they may be held vicariously liable for data breaches and other violations of the GDPR involving employees, who act as independent controllers in their own right.
Continue Reading UK Supreme Court Rules That Supermarket Is Not Vicariously Liable For Data Breach Committed By Employee

On March 21, 2020, the data security requirements of the New York SHIELD Act became effective.  The Act, which amends New York’s General Business Law, represents an expansion of New York’s existing cybersecurity and data breach notification laws.  Its two main impacts on businesses are:

  1. expanding data breach notification requirements

…
Continue Reading New York SHIELD Act’s Reasonable Safeguard Requirements Became Effective on March 21st —Is Your Company Ready?

Earlier this month, the Governor of Vermont signed into law S.B. 110, which will amend the state’s data breach notification law and create a new student privacy law focused on operators of educational technology services.  Notably, the amendments to the state’s data breach notification law will expand the categories of personally identifiable information (“PII”) that may trigger notification obligations to individuals and regulators in the event of a breach to include online account credentials, health and medical information, and biometric and genetic data, among others.  The student privacy law will place certain restrictions on how student data can be collected, used, and disclosed by operators of online educational technology services.  The new requirements, which will enter into force on July 1, 2020, are discussed in more detail below.
Continue Reading Vermont Enacts Data Breach Notification and Student Privacy Legislation

In response to the recent coronavirus outbreak (“2019-nCoV”), a wide range of Chinese regulators, including many levels of local governments (down to the neighborhood committee level) and local public security bureaus (“PSBs”), have been actively collecting personal information to monitor and potentially mitigate the spread of the outbreak.  For example, Shenzhen PSB has issued a notice requiring residents or visitors to Shenzhen to scan a QR code to fill in personal information, such as their contact details, addresses, travel information, and health status.  The Shanghai Municipal People’s Government also issued a similar notice requiring residents returning to Shanghai from an out-of-town trip or visitors to report a similar set of personal information.

In practice, numerous additional third party entities, including airports, train stations, employers, and landlords, could engage in collecting extensive personal information from travelers or visitors to a particular location or area, due to their own reporting obligations.  For instance, visitors to office buildings may be obliged to report their health status to the landlord or building management.  Also, employers are required to closely monitor the health status of employees if the employers apply to the local government to re-open their offices or factories.

With the widespread practice of information collection for public health purposes, data breaches and misuse of data become a major concern of the public.  For example, it has been reported that travelers from Wuhan to other cities within China have been victims of data breaches after submitting their personal information to transportation entities and local regulators.  A document entitled “List of Individuals Returning to Ningdu From Wuhan” was leaked to various WeChat groups in January 2020 and contained the personal information, including telephone numbers, national identification numbers, and home addresses, of approximately four to five hundred data subjects.  Similar incidents happened across China and the sources of the leaks remain uncertain.
Continue Reading Cyberspace Administration of China Releases Notice on the Protection of Personal Information in the Fight Against Coronavirus

Over the past several months, many states, including Illinois, New York, Texas, and Washington, have passed significant amendments to their state data breach notification laws.  Currently, most state data breach notification laws only require notification of residents (and possibly state regulators or others) following a “breach” of personally identifiable information (“PII”), which is often defined as a resident’s name along with a Social Security number, driver’s license or state identification card number, or a financial account, debit, or credit card number with any required security code, access code, or password to access a financial account.  Among other changes, these amendments have expanded the categories of PII that may trigger notification obligations if breached, imposed new requirements to notify regulators (in addition to affected individuals) in the event of a breach, and implemented specific timing requirements for how soon after a breach individuals and regulators must be notified.  These changes are summarized in additional detail below.
Continue Reading Round-Up of Recent Changes to U.S. State Data Breach Notification Laws

On April 24, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lamps Plus, Inc., et al. v. Varela, addressing the question of whether an ambiguous arbitration agreement can be read to compel class arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16 (2000). Underscoring the controversial nature of this decision, the case was decided by a 5-4 split that included dissenting opinions authored by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, held that contract ambiguity did not suffice to compel class arbitration.
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Affirms the Necessity of Express Authorization for Class Arbitration

On April 19, 2019, China’s Ministry of Public Security (“MPS”) released the final version of its Guideline for Internet Personal Information Security Protection (互联网个人信息安全保护指南) (the “Guideline”).  A previous version of the Guideline was released for public comments on November 30, 2018.

Under China’s Cybersecurity Law (the “CSL”), MPS is the key regulator tasked with protecting cybersecurity and combating cybercrime.  Following the issuance of the draft Regulations on Cybersecurity Multi-level Protection Scheme (the “Draft MLPS Regulation”, discussed in our previous post available here) and the Regulation on the Internet Security Supervision and Inspection by Public Security Agencies (also discussed in a previous post, available here) last year, the release of this new Guideline represents the latest efforts made by MPS to implement the CSL.

The stated goal of the Guideline is to “protect cybersecurity and individuals’ legitimate interests” and to “effectively prevent cybercrime involving personal information.”  Although not issued as a legally binding administrative regulation, this Guideline sets out the best practices recommended by MPS and will likely serve as an important reference for cybersecurity inspections that will be carried out by the agency and its local counterparts (i.e., local public security bureaus, “PSBs”).

To a large extent, this Guideline overlaps with China’s national standard on personal information protection, GB/T 35273-2017 Information Security Technology – Personal Information Security Specification (the “Standard”), which took effect on May 1, 2018.  The Guideline referred to the Standard as its “indispensable” reference, although at this stage, it is unclear how this Guideline will interact with other existing regulations and national standards.  Furthermore, this new Guideline provides more prescriptive requirements relating to a company’s cybersecurity infrastructure, both in terms of organizational support and technical measures to be implemented.

This post summarizes key requirements of the Guideline.Continue Reading China’s Ministry of Public Security Issues New Personal Information Protection Guideline

The Governor of Massachusetts recently signed House Bill No. 4806 into law, which will amend certain provisions of the state’s data breach notification law.  In addition to changing the information that must be included in notifications to regulators and individuals, the amendments will also require entities to provide eighteen months of free credit monitoring services following breaches involving Social Security numbers.  The amendments, which will enter into force on April 11, 2019, are discussed in greater detail below.
Continue Reading Massachusetts Amends Data Breach Notification Law to Require Free Credit Monitoring

Recent years have seen significant amounts of legislative activity related to state data breach notification laws, and 2018 was no exception.  Not only did South Dakota and Alabama enact new data breach notification laws in 2018, becoming the last of 50 U.S. states to enact such laws, but other states also enacted changes to existing data breach notification laws during 2018 to expand their scope and implement additional notification requirements.  Following up on our global year-end review of major privacy and cybersecurity developments, we’ve summarized the major developments and trends observed with regards to state data breach notification laws over the past year.
Continue Reading State Data Breach Notification Laws: 2018 in Review

As many data breach litigation cases have demonstrated over recent years, the question of a plaintiff’s standing can be quite important to the outcome of each case.  While the Supreme Court has addressed standing issues in several cases with potential applicability in the data breach litigation context, most recently in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins and Clapper v. Amnesty International, the Court has not yet addressed head-on the question of standing requirements for plaintiffs in data breach litigation.  More recently, a cert petition in another data breach standing case (In re Zappos.com), discussed below, has been distributed for conference this Friday, December 7, 2018.  As the Court considers whether to grant cert and address this issue, this post provides an overview of the circuit split on standing in data breach litigation cases and efforts to convince the Court to revisit the issue and provide more precise guidance. 
Continue Reading Standing Issues in Data Breach Litigation: An Overview