Texas law requires businesses to implement and maintain reasonable cybersecurity, which they should do so with a written program for managing cyber risk and protecting sensitive customer information. This warning came from the state’s Attorney General following his office’s $1.5 Million settlement with Neiman Marcus over its 2013 data breach.
Late last year, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled that employers have a legal duty to safeguard employee’s sensitive personal information stored on an internet-accessible computer system and that the state’s economic loss doctrine allowed the plaintiffs in Dittman to recover for purely monetary damages.
The most likely “cyber attack” that your company will face will come in the form of an email. One of the most common forms of email attack is the business email compromise (BEC) and the most popular time of the year for the W-2 version of BEC is right now — tax season.
For many U.S. organizations, figuring out whether – and to what extent – Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) applies to your operations has caused a lot of headaches. Do you have an “establishment in the [European] Union”? Are you “offering…goods and services…to…data subjects in the Union”? Are you “monitoring” the behavior of data subjects in the Union? How will these terms be interpreted and enforced?
South Carolina has recently enacted a new insurance data security law entitled the South Carolina Insurance Data Security Act. The new legislation generally applies to licensees (any person licensed, authorized to operate, or registered, or required to be licensed, authorized, or registered, under the insurance laws of South Carolina) with ten or more employees or independent contractors.
As we enter 2019, social media is flooded with resolutions for self-improvement, let us propose a few:
Three major changes to Colorado data privacy laws became effective September 1, 2018. These affect virtually all business collecting personally identifying information (PII) from Colorado residents:
A Missouri federal court granted a motion to dismiss this week in a case against a provider and medical record processing company. In the case, a patient alleged that a “search and retrieval” fee imposed in response to a patients request for access to medical records violated the Missouri Merchandizing Practices Act. In dismissing the claim, the court only addressed Missouri law as the allegations did not involve alleged violations of HIPAA. The outcome in this Missouri case is similar to the outcome in an unrelated Tennessee case against the same medical records company that was dismissed earlier this summer. The Tennessee case alleged multiple violations of Tennessee law relating to the fees imposed for access to medical records, using HIPAA as the standard for medical records fees. In dismissing the case, the Tennessee court found that neither HIPAA nor Tennessee law provide a private cause of action for excessive medical record fees. The Tennessee case is pending appeal.
In the wake of the record setting $16 Million dollar settlement and resolution agreement with Anthem, Inc, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) released a new version of their Security Risk Assessment tool. The new tool and recent settlement agreement renew the emphasis of OCR on the performance of HIPAA Security Risk Assessments by covered entities and their business associates.
The burgeoning multi-billion dollar cyber insurance market is expected to continue its 25%+ annual growth over the next few years. Despite this dramatic growth, the market is plagued with uncertainty over the meaning of key policy terms and scope of coverage. The lack of both uniformity in cyber policy language and judicial guidance interpreting policy language prevent companies from confidently assessing their loss exposure in the event of a major data breach.