Data Breaches

Canada’s new data breach law, The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”), took effect on November 1. Official guidance released by the country’s Privacy Commissioner explains a few of the law’s key provisions that will affect organizations, specifically, breach reporting and notification obligations, their triggers, and record retention.

Reporting & Notification Obligations

Under the new law, an organization must report and notify individuals of a data breach involving personal information under its control if it reasonably determines the breach creates a “real risk of significant harm” to an individual, regardless of the number of individuals affected. (The guidance states a covered breach that affects only one individual would nonetheless require reporting and notification.) Importantly, the organization that controls the data is required to report and notify individuals of the breach—the guidance clarifies that even when an organization has transferred data to a third-party processor, the organization remains ultimately responsible for reporting and notification. The guidance encourages organizations to mitigate their risk in the event their third-party processor faces a breach by entering sufficient contractual arrangements.

Notification to individuals must be given “as soon as feasible” after the organization has determined a covered breach has occurred. The guidance states the notification must be conspicuous, understandable, and given directly to the individual in most circumstances. It must include enough information to communicate the significance of the breach and allow the those affected to take any steps possible to reduce their risk of harm. The regulations further specify the information a notification must include. In certain circumstances, organizations are also required to notify governmental institutions or organizations of a covered breach; for example, an organization may be required to notify law enforcement if it believes it may be able to reduce the risk of harm.Continue Reading Canadian Privacy Commissioner Releases Official Guidance as Data Breach Law Takes Effect

On 25 May 2018, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into effect. The GDPR establishes some of the most robust privacy requirements globally and is likely to be a model followed by other jurisdictions. Airlines are uniquely affected by the GDPR with passenger data being at the heart of their business and international operations. As new technologies allow airlines to pursue new and innovative uses of customer data, it is imperative that airlines continue to conduct their operations with GDPR compliance in mind, particularly given the financial and other reputational issues that can arise for a failure to meet the GDPR’s strict requirements.

Below are 5 key issues for airlines to consider in relation to the GDPR post-implementation.
Continue Reading GDPR: Top 5 Post-Implementation Issues for Airlines

On June 28, 2018, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”), which is aimed at strengthening consumer privacy rights and data security protections.  The CCPA takes effect on January 1, 2020 and is considered the most stringent privacy law in the country.

The CCPA applies to for-profit…
Continue Reading California Adopts Expansive Consumer Privacy Law

This spring has seen significant legislative activity with regards to state data breach notification laws, ranging from new laws in Alabama and South Dakota to amendments to existing laws in Oregon, Arizona, and elsewhere.  Continuing this trend, three states recently passed legislation to amend their existing data breach notification laws.  Legislation recently passed in Colorado will require notification of affected individuals and the state Attorney General within 30 days, while recent amendments to Louisiana’s data breach notification law will expand the scope of personally identifiable information (“PII”) covered by the law.  In addition, Vermont recently passed legislation that will create specific data breach notification requirements for “data brokers.”  This post examines each state’s amendments in greater detail below.

Colorado

Through the passage of H.B. 1128, which takes effect on September 1, 2018, Colorado has broadened the definition of PII under its existing data breach notification law, in addition to requiring notification of the state Attorney General and imposing strict notification timelines.  Once the new provisions enter into force, covered entities will be required to notify affected individuals within 30 days of the determination that a breach has occurred.  Colorado joins Florida as the only states that have imposed a 30-day notification deadline for notice to individuals, although Colorado’s law, unlike Florida’s, will not include a provision that allows for an extension of this deadline under certain limited conditions.  In addition, Colorado’s amendments will require notification of the state Attorney General if a covered entity believes that more than 500 state residents have been affected by a breach.  As with individual notifications, the notification to the state Attorney General must be provided within 30 days  after the date of determination of a breach.Continue Reading Colorado, Louisiana, and Vermont Add to Recent Trend of Changes to State Data Breach Notification Laws

On April 24, 2018, Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced the Social Media Privacy and Consumer Rights Act of 2018.  The bill aims to protect consumers’ online data by increasing the transparency of data collection and tracking practices, and requiring companies to notify consumers of a privacy violation within 72 hours.

“Our bill gives consumers more control over their private data, requires user agreements to be written in plain English and requires companies to notify users of privacy violations,” Senator Kennedy explained. “These are just simple steps that online platforms should have implemented in the first place.”

Other features of the legislation include providing consumers a right of access to see what information about them has been collected and used, allowing consumers to opt out of data collection and tracking, and requiring online platforms to have a privacy program in place.  Senator Klobuchar explained that “[c]onsumers should have the right to control their personal data and that means allowing them to opt out of having their data collected and tracked and alerting them within 72 hours when a privacy violation occurs and their personal information may be compromised.” 
Continue Reading Senators Klobuchar and Kennedy Introduce Privacy Legislation

On December 1, 2017, the High Court of England and Wales found the fourth-largest supermarket chain in the UK, Wm Morrisons (“Morrisons”), vicariously liable for a data breach caused by the intentional criminal actions of one of its employees, namely the leaking of payroll information online.

The breach affected almost 100,000 Morrisons employees and the action, brought by 5,518 former and current employees, is considered to be the first of its kind in the United Kingdom. The data compromised in the breach included personal data such as names, addresses, and bank account details.Continue Reading English High Court Finds Supermarket Liable for Data Breach by Employee in First Successful Privacy Class Action

In a speech delivered at the United States Naval Academy on October 10, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein waded into the public debate between data privacy and law enforcement interests.  As part of a discussion moderated by former Covington cybersecurity attorney Jeff Kosseff, Rosenstein’s remarks discussed cyber issues facing law enforcement with a particular focus on the advent of “warrant-proof” encryption.  In his view, warrant-proof encrypted data and devices are unable to be intercepted or unlocked by law enforcement, even with a court order.

Noting that “[p]rivate sector entities are crucial partners” in the fight against cyber threats, Rosenstein expressed concerns about the role played by tech companies in advancing warrant-proof encryption.  While recognizing the need to balance important privacy interests against law enforcement priorities, Rosenstein argued that “[w]arrant-proof encryption defeats the constitutional balance by elevating privacy above public safety.”  He emphasized the threat posed to public safety when technology developers deprive law enforcement of “crucial investigative tools.”  Rosenstein advocated for “responsible encryption,” recognizing that this approach would not be one-size-fits-all and that solutions would likely look different depending on the company and technology at issue. 
Continue Reading Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein Warns Against Warrant-Proof Encryption

In the immediate aftermath of discovering a cybersecurity incident, companies often face many questions and few answers amidst a frenzy of activity.  What happened?  What should we do now?  What legal risks does the company face, and how should it protect against them?  In this fast-paced environment, it can be difficult to coordinate the activity across an incident response.  Well-intentioned actions by incident responders can easily expose the company to liability, regulator scrutiny, or a waiver of applicable legal privileges.

Instead of waiting to make critical incident response decisions in the “fog of war” that often occurs during the fast-paced events following the detection of a cybersecurity incident, organizations should think about how to respond before a cybersecurity incident actually occurs.  Responding to a cyberattack can involve a wide variety of different stakeholders such as IT and information security personnel, forensic analysts and investigators, legal counsel, communications advisors, and others.  Advance planning, including the development and execution of an incident response plan, allows a company to coordinate activities across a diverse array of different incident response work streams, and test that coordination.  Below, this post describes some key steps companies can take to respond to a cybersecurity incident in a swift, efficient, and effective manner.
Continue Reading Preparation and Practice: Keys to Responding to a Cyber Security Incident

Delaware Gov. John Carney has signed into law a bill that will impose more stringent obligations for notifying affected Delaware residents in the event of a data breach, in addition to establishing requirements for Delaware businesses to maintain “reasonable” data security practices.  In addition to expanding the types of information that would require notification of affected individuals if breached, the amendments will also require an entity to provide credit monitoring services if the breach involves Social Security numbers.  Once the bill enters into force, entities will also have to notify the Delaware Attorney General if a breach affects more than 500 Delaware residents.  The amendments will enter into force on approximately April 14, 2018.
Continue Reading Delaware Amends Data Breach Notification Law to Require Credit Monitoring, Attorney General Notification