Last week, New Mexico and Tennessee both passed legislation updating each state’s requirements for notifying residents following a data breach.  New Mexico’s new law, H.B. 15, makes it the 48th U.S. state to enact a state data breach notification law, leaving Alabama and South Dakota as the only states that have not enacted similar laws.  Tennessee’s bill, S.B. 547, amended its Identity Theft Deterrence Act of 1999 to exempt certain encrypted data from triggering notification requirements.

New Mexico’s breach notification law is similar to that of other states, with a few notable differences.  Like a handful of states, the statute’s definition of Personal Identifying Information (PII) includes biometric data as well as more commonly used categories such as Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, or bank account or payment card information.  If the breach gives “rise to a significant risk of identity theft or fraud,” the law imposes a 45-day deadline to provide notification to affected consumers.  However, if a single breach affects more than 1,000 New Mexico residents, the state attorney general and major consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) must also be notified within 45 days.  Further, the statute specifies the content required when notifying a New Mexico resident of a breach.  In addition to details about the PII believed to have been compromised and a description of the incident, affected residents are entitled to information about their rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a federal statute designed to protect the privacy of consumer report information and the accuracy of data supplied to CRAs.

Tennessee’s new legislation follows last year’s amendment to its existing statute, which imposed a 45-day notification deadline for breaches of both encrypted and unencrypted data.  At the time, Tennessee became the only state with a data breach notification law that did not include an encrypted data exemption.  The amendment signed into law last week restores the exemption, with the added requirement that the applied encryption must comply with the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 140-2 in order to qualify for the exemption.

Tags: breach notification, Cybersecurity, Data Breach, Data Security, Legislation, New Mexico, Tennessee
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Caleb Skeath Caleb Skeath

Caleb Skeath helps companies manage their most complex and high‑stakes cybersecurity and data security challenges, combining deep regulatory insight, technical fluency, and practical judgment informed by leading incident response matters.

Caleb Skeath advises in‑house legal and security teams on the full lifecycle of…

Caleb Skeath helps companies manage their most complex and high‑stakes cybersecurity and data security challenges, combining deep regulatory insight, technical fluency, and practical judgment informed by leading incident response matters.

Caleb Skeath advises in‑house legal and security teams on the full lifecycle of cybersecurity and privacy risk—from governance and preparedness through incident response, regulatory engagement, and follow‑on litigation. A Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP), he is trusted by clients across highly regulated and technology‑driven sectors to provide clear, practical guidance at moments when legal judgment, technical understanding, and business realities must be aligned.

Caleb has deep experience leading and overseeing responses to complex cybersecurity incidents, including ransomware, data theft and extortion, business email compromise, advanced persistent threats and state-sponsored threat actors, insider threats, and inadvertent data loss. He regularly helps in‑house counsel structure and manage investigations under attorney‑client privilege; coordinate with internal IT, information security, and executive stakeholders; and engage with forensic firms, crisis communications providers, insurers, and law enforcement. A central focus of his practice is advising on notification obligations and strategy, including the application of U.S. federal and state data breach notification laws and requirements along with contractual notification obligations, and helping companies make defensible, risk‑informed decisions about timing, scope, and messaging.

In addition to his work responding to cybersecurity incidents, Caleb works closely with clients’ legal, technical, and compliance teams on cybersecurity governance, regulatory compliance, and pre‑incident planning. He has extensive experience drafting and reviewing cybersecurity policies, incident response plans, and vendor contract provisions; supervising cybersecurity assessments under privilege; and advising on training and tabletop exercises designed to prepare organizations for real‑world incidents. His work frequently involves translating evolving regulatory expectations into actionable guidance for in‑house counsel, including in highly-regulated sectors such as the financial sector (including compliance with NYDFS cybersecurity regulations, the Computer Security Incident Notification Rule, and GLBA guidelines and guidance) and the pharmaceutical and healthcare sector (including compliance with GxP standards, FDA medical device guidance, and HIPAA).

Caleb’s practice also addresses evolving and emerging areas of cybersecurity and data security law, including advising clients on compliance with the Department of Justice’s Data Security Program, CISA‑related security requirements for restricted transactions, and preparation for new regulatory regimes such as the CCPA cybersecurity audit requirements and federal incident reporting obligations. He regularly counsels clients on how artificial intelligence and connected devices intersect with cybersecurity, privacy, and consumer protection risk, and how to support innovation while managing regulatory exposure.

Caleb also has extensive experience helping clients navigate high-stakes cybersecurity-related inquiries from the Federal Trade Commission, state Attorneys General, and other sector-specific regulators, including incident-specific inquiries as well as broader inquiries related to an entity’s cybersecurity practices and the security of product or service offerings. For companies that have entered into cybersecurity-related settlement agreements with regulators, Caleb has helped guide them through compliance with settlement agreement obligations, including navigating required third-party assessments and strategically responding to cybersecurity incidents that can arise while a company is subject to a settlement agreement. Caleb also routinely works hand-in-hand with colleagues in Covington’s class action litigation, commercial litigation, and insurance recovery practices to prepare for and successfully navigate incident-related disputes that can devolve into litigation.

Read more about Caleb SkeathEmail
Show more Show less