Ping Service
Feedback Forms

California Amends Data Breach Law

On September 30, 2014, California joined the trend and enacted amendments to its data security laws.

First, the new law expands its scope to third-party service providers and businesses that do not just “own or license personal information,” but merely “maintain” that data. Previously, the California statute mandating businesses to “implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices” only applied to businesses that “own or license personal information.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Court Certifies Interlocutory Appeal for the FTC v. Wyndham Matter

TRAUB LIEBERMAN STRAUS & SHREWSBERRY LLP’s Cyber Law Blog previously discussed various aspects of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) action filed against Wyndham Worldwide Corp. (“Wyndham”) under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits “unfair and deceptive acts or practices.” Recent developments in the FTC action carry implications for cyber liability and how companies handle cyber security and data breaches.

On April 7, 2014, US District Judge Esther Salas denied Wyndham’s motion to dismiss directly challenging the FTC’s authority to regulate cyber security practices. Wyndham’s motion asserted that Congress had not delegated such authority to the FTC under its Section 5 powers, and even if it did, the FTC failed to publish rules or regulations providing companies fair notice of the protections expected and “legal standards” to be enforced by the FTC.

At the time, Judge Salas unequivocally ruled in favor of the FTC’s authority. However, on June 23, 2014, the Court granted Wyndham’s application and certified the matter for an immediate interlocutory appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeal involves two questions of law: (1) whether the FTC can bring an unfairness claim involving data security under Section 5 of the FTC Act and (2) whether the FTC must formally promulgate regulations before bringing its unfairness claim under Section 5 of the FTC Act.

Interlocutory appeals are rarely granted, are in the complete discretion of the trial court, and must meet certain requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), including whether there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion on the matter. While Judge Salas’s denial of Wyndham’s motion to dismiss was certain as to the FTC’s Section 5 authority and the issue of fair notice, the Order certifying the matter for interlocutory appeal on the other hand, acknowledged Wyndham’s “statutory authority and fair-notice challenges confront this Court with novel, complex statutory interpretation issues that give rise to a substantial ground for difference of opinion.”

The Court further acknowledged that it was dealing with an issue of first impression with “nationwide significance… which indisputably affects consumers and businesses in a climate where we collectively struggle to maintain privacy while enjoying the benefits of the digital age.”
As a result, the Third Circuit will be the first major appellate court to weigh in on the issue of whether the FTC has authority to regulate cyber security practices, and if so whether those regulations require specific legal standards and fair notice to those within the scope of FTC’s enforcement.

- See more at: http://www.traublieberman.com/cyber-law/2014/0710/4801/#sthash.hgIolyzW.dpuf

Fax Online    Send article as PDF   

Cyber Liability Insurance: The Value of an Educated Broker in the Age of E-Commerce

I first published this article in 2010. Surprisingly, its as relevant today – perhaps even more relevant – than it was four years ago.

Rick

Introduction: Insurance Products for Cyber Risks

Media reports of cyber intrusions, data thefts and computer system malfunctions involving large, high-profile companies such as Sony PlayStation, Citigroup and Lockheed’s Security Vendor, RSA, have led a rapidly growing number of companies to consider the necessity of insurance coverage for technology and cyber privacy risks. As these businesses become more reliant on electronic communication and data storage, they are also developing a heightened awareness that an unauthorized intrusion could endanger their tangible and intangible assets (including their intellectual property) and, in many cases, their reputations and abilities to conduct business. Consequently, prospective policyholders are becoming more cognizant of the necessity for insurance covering these exposures.

Read the rest of this entry »

Rumination and Pondering

Is it Karma that Adam Silver sanctioned Donald Sterling or am I thinking about it too deeply? I’ll leave it to readers to decide.

Edit PDF    Send article as PDF   

Cyber class-action litigation: Insurers’ next significant spend?

The following article was first published by my friends at Advisen for their new Cyber Risk Network. For those who haven’t already done so, check it out.

Rick

Virtually every reader is well aware of the decision from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit finding that claims by class-action plaintiffs for “mitigation damages” arising from a cyber breach were viable. Anderson v. Hannaford Brothers Co., 659 F.3d 151 (1st Cir. 2011).

There, the court held under Maine law that, in the abstract, certain claimants whose financial information was stolen could recover certain costs incurred in a reasonable effort to mitigate.

Hannaford Brothers is an extreme outlier in the world of cyber class-action litigation. And—as it should have in my view—the case effectively ended when the District Court, on remand, declined to certify the putative class in light of the claimants’ failure to establish that common issues of law and fact “predominate” over individual issues, a predicate to class certification.

Read the rest of this entry »

Risk Based Security’s 2013 Data Breach QuickView Report

The following was provided by my friend Jake Kouns of Risk Based Security, a leading-edge security and threat intelligence company. that provides comprehensive vulnerability and data breach intelligence services.   Thanks Jake.

Rick

Risk Based SecurityWe  are pleased to release our Data Breach Quick view report that shows 2013 broke the previous all-time record for the number of exposed records caused by reported data breach incidents.  The 2,164 incidents reported during 2013 exposed over 822 million records, nearly doubling the previous highest year on record (2011).

Although overshadowed by the number of exposed records, 2013 is also ranked #2 in total reported  data breach incidents, just behind 2012. “When you analyze the data breach activity in 2013 it’s hard to  find any bright-side, said Barry Kouns, CEO of Risk Based Security. “Four of the “Top 10” data breaches all time, were reported in 2013, including the top spot. “

Read the rest of this entry »

The Target Breach: Show Me The Insurance

The following article was first published by the Advisen Cyber Risk Network. If you haven’t checked it out, you should. Its extremely informative. And I’ll be a regular contributor.

Cheers.

Rick

By now, almost everyone has read or heard about – or even been directly impacted by – the theft of financial data relating to over 40 million credit and debit cards used at Target stores in November and December last year.

However, the insurance coverage aspects of the breach have generally flown under the radar.

To a company like Target (or whoever is affected by the next breach), the availability of insurance coverage is an important component of crisis management and remediation, litigation and regulatory investigation strategies, and reputational/brand/lost income protection.

So assuming Target has purchased potentially applicable insurance products, what coverages might apply?  And how might they respond?

At a minimum, it can be expected that Target will investigate the availability of coverage under four separate lines of insurance: Cyber, privacy and technology (CPT); general liability; crime/fidelity and; directors and officers liability policies.

Read the rest of this entry »

Cyber, Privacy and Technology Best Practices and Reputational Harm: Why Legal Professionals Need a Lawyer’s Advice, Counsel and Privileges

BabyB_LPlate_improvedIntroduction

Lawyers, like other professionals, often have access to their clients’ personal and financial details. At the same time, they may possess comparable information about their clients’ clients (such as when a lawyer represents a healthcare company). As a result, lawyers are at risk for being sued if and when something happens to that information – such as when a laptop or cell phone is misplaced or stolen or a hacker breaches a law firm or client’s systems and accesses the client’s personally identifiable, health care, and/or confidential information.
The most prudent way to avoid such lawsuits and minimize their impact is to create and implement cyber, privacy and technology (“CPT”) best practices before something goes wrong. In most cases, this would include best practices training and education as well as the purchase of dedicated CPT-specific insurance. This article discusses why lawyers are at risk, how to create and implement best practices, and the advantages of CBT insurance coverage rather than (mistakenly) relying on professional errors and omissions and/or general liability coverage in the event of a CPT incident.

Executive Summary

An attorney’s reputation is his and her lifeblood. Indeed, reputation translates to the bottom line. For better or worse.
And, of course, reputation is, in large part, predicated on the quality, timeliness and cost-effectiveness of the services being provided. So too, it is incumbent that an attorney avoid negative commentary (or embarrassing revelations) through the pervasive and ubiquitous medium of social media. As a corollary, attorneys, like others, must be sensitive to the loss of customer goodwill, whether measured by turnover, client retention or other intangible assets.

Regardless of whether your clients are the Fortune 500, middle-market companies or small entrepreneurs, an attorneys’ clients – and by extension, the attorney himself and herself (to the extent the attorney holds personal, health or commercial information) – are at risk of losing personally identifiable information (“PII”), personal health information (“PHI”) and/or confidential commercial information (“CCI”). It doesn’t matter whether the harm is attributable to malicious activity or simple employee or third-party negligence. It’s the effect that is the focus, not necessarily the cause (although that too factors into the analysis).

In many cases, the effect of a cyber incident could be devastating, if not fatal, to an attorney’s reputation. And, by extension, his or her practice’s economic viability.
It is almost axiomatic to say that “best practices” are among the most important strategies employed by attorneys and other professionals. Just as we counsel clients to use best practices with respect to their operations, so too, we, as professionals, should be well-trained on the scope and extent of best practices in the subject matter presented, including, in particular, CPT risks and exposures, which, to no surprise, are palpable and potentially devastating.

In the CPT context, among others, best practices counseling should be provided by an attorney. Unlike non-lawyers, attorneys bring with them the attorney-client privilege and work product protection. Although vendors and IT specialists can promote themselves as having the appropriate knowledge and training to teach and implement best practices, they do possess the critical protections afforded by the attorney-client relationship. In a relatively new space like CPT, where the law is uncertain and developing, the privileges become even more important, as many attorneys are just at the start of the learning curve.

To continue reading, please contact me at rbortnick@cpmy.com. A complete copy will be emailed upon request. Cheers. Rick

PDF24 Creator    Send article as PDF   

Asia-Pacific Cyber Law Risks and Developments

We first published the following White Paper extract in October 2011. While the White Paper might be somewhat dated (and therefore will be refreshed shortly), it remains relevant for our friends interested in learning the basics of Asia Pacific cyber/privacy law. Please let me know if you’d like to see the entire paper. Rick

I. Introduction

The Internet facilitates the widespread and instantaneous flow of information across international borders. While the advent of this method of transnational communication has truly created a “global economy,” at the same time, it has engendered problems for companies and their insurers which seek to assess risk and implement information safeguards, particularly in the face of divergent data privacy laws which vary from region to region or may not even exist in certain jurisdictions. The Asia-Pacific region typifies such a lack of uniformity.

At the same time, the emerging economies in this rapidly growing part of the world have generated promising targets for computer hackers. 75% of Asia-Pacific enterprises have experienced cyber attacks in the past 12 months. Perhaps not surprisingly, a 2010 study by Symantec reported that almost half of all Asia-Pacific-based businesses (and 67% in Singapore) ranked cyber risk and information security as their top concern—more so than natural disasters, terrorism, and traditional crime combined. Cyber attacks and data breaches are on the radar of CEOs and risk managers for good reason: the average cost for a large company to remediate a data breach in Australia increased to nearly $2 million in 2010, which is slightly up from 2009. See Ponemon Institute/Symantec 2010 Annual Study: Australian Cost of a Data Breach (May 2011).

Notwithstanding the prevalence of such attacks, it is far more likely that a cyber security program is managed as a part of a company’s traditional business risks, with traditional coverages being contorted to cover various components of cyber risk (i.e. property loss, liability to third-parties, business interruption, etc.), rather than by way of a dedicated cyber-specific insurance program. Still, in light of recent developments, it is virtually certain that companies soon will begin looking to transfer such risk via more efficient and targeted technology insurance forms and policies

Read the rest of this entry »

Canadians More Exposed Than One Would Think

canada-flag-stereotypesOkay. Let’s start with the obvious. No, this has nothing to do with Canadian citizens and immigrants behaving badly, although that may be a topic for a future post.

What we’re talking about is the prevalence of cyber-related incidents and the resulting fallout among Canadian-based companies. And the numbers may surprise you.

Read the rest of this entry »

State Privacy Laws Evolve While Congress Campaigns

New legislation governing data breaches and privacy issues is popping up in states across the country. Most recently, Connecticut, Vermont, and Illinois have enacted new laws in these areas.

Connecticut

At long last, the proposed legislation requiring a data breach to be reported has become law in Connecticut. Section 369-701b was unable to move its way through the 2012 General Session of the Connecticut Legislature, but it was recently passed as part of the Connecticut General Assembly’s Special Session as an attachment of the Budget Bill.

Read the rest of this entry »

Insurers: Assert Your Subrogation Rights

The following column was first published in the second issue of Advisen’s Cyber Liability Journal (here). I will republish my future columns in coming months. In the meantime, you can subscribe to the Journal at http://corner.advisen.com/journals.html (here).

Rick

It is axiomatic to say that insurance products evolve. Indeed, like virtually every organic structure, its development, growth and nimbleness are necessary to meet the progress of maturing, service-based economies. Hence, the advent of cyber/tech/privacy liability (CTP) insurance.

At present, there are over 25 markets selling some type of CTP coverage. Many insurers sell standalone products. Others bolt on new coverage parts to their existing products. Still others add endorsements that attempt to extend coverage to address an existing client’s business model.

Read the rest of this entry »

WARNING: HHS Now Combating HIPAA Violations With HITECH Weaponry

On March 13, 2012 – almost 30 months after becoming one of the first entities to self-report a breach under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act – BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee (BCBST) agreed to pay the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) a record setting $1.5 million civil monetary penalty (CMP) for failing to safeguard protected health information (PHI).


The HITECH Act and HIPAA Enforcement

HHS adopted the interim final rule for HITECH’s breach notification requirement only a few weeks before the BCBST breach. The final rule requires covered entities to notify HHS following a breach of unsecured PHI. If a breach affects 500 or more individuals, the covered entity must report the breach electronically “without reasonable delay and in no case later than 60 days from discovery of the breach.”

Read the rest of this entry »

The Coverage Question

We are grateful to the rapidly-growing number of Cyberinquirer readers who continue to submit substantive content for publication. This truly is an industry blog, and we strive to present alternative points of view from all quarters.

The following article was authored by Gregg A. Rapoport, Esq., and David Lam, CISSP, CPP. Attorney Rapoport has represented policyholders in coverage litigation for over 20 years as part of a broad business litigation practice based in Pasadena, California. Mr. Lam is vice president of the Los Angeles Information Systems Security Association and has over 20 years of experience as an IT and information security professional and author. This article was first published by RIMS, and we appreciate Messrs. Rapoport and Lam offering it for republication here.

Rick Bortnick

As they confront the sobering question of whether their networks and the data they carry are fully secure, today’s “C-level” executives are becoming fluent in once-esoteric information security terms. Many have reached the conclusion that no matter the size of their IT and security budgets, there is no foolproof system for securing the confidentiality, integrity and availability of their data. Company networks remain vulnerable to attacks even if they adhere to industry best practices and run best-of-breed firewalls.

To address these security challenges, companies are relying on their risk managers to evaluate the applicability of existing insurance coverage to data breach incidents, and to assess the value of transferring some of the uncovered financial risk to one of the carriers now offering cyber-risk insurance policies. As the market for these products matures, premiums have come down significantly and policy limits have increased.

Read the rest of this entry »

An Insurer’s View: Examining the Rising Costs of Breaches

The following article, written by reknowned London Market underwriter Rick Welsh, was first published in the November 2011 Data Guidance newsletter. A shout out to Rick for passing it on to us for republication.

Rick Bortnick

Today, no company – even with comprehensive privacy policies and practices – can be safe from data breaches. Can companies effectively transfer the risk (and cost) of data breaches by way of insurance? What costs should the companies consider? Almost every reference to the cost of data breaches or ‘cyber crime’ identifies the actual cost of the breach notification as its common currency. In Part One of this analysis, Rick Welsh, Cyber Underwriting Director at ANV, explores this metric’s limitations and the true exposure and cost of data breaches.

The well-regarded Ponemon Institute is constantly measuring the cost of a data breach and is commonly referenced by many to express the rising cost of data breaches. The second annual ‘Cost of Cyber Crime Study’ issued by the Ponemon Institute in August 2011, found that the median annualised cost of cyber crime for the 50 companies in the study was $5.9 million, with a range being between $1.5 million to $36.5 million. The annualised average was up 56% from the previous year’s study.

Read the rest of this entry »

Insurance Recovery for Loss or Liability Arising from Cyberattacks: Obtain and Preserve Insurance for Your Company’s Protection

The following article was written by my good friend, Scott Godes, a policyholder attorney with Dickstein Shapiro in Washington, D.C., and his colleague, Ken Trotter, and appeared on Scott’s personal site, Corporate Insurance Blog, after being published by Hospitality Upgrade magazine. Cyberinquirer neither ratifies nor necessarily agrees with the opinions stated below, which are Scott’s exclusively and not those of Cyberinquirer or Dickstein Shapiro.

Rick Bortnick

It is no secret that the hospitality industry continues to be vulnerable to data breaches and other cyberattacks. A report by Willis Group Holdings, a British insurance firm, states that the largest share of cyberattacks (38 percent) were aimed at hotels, resorts and tour companies. According to the report, insurance claims for data theft worldwide jumped 56 percent last year, with a bigger number of those attacks targeting the hospitality industry. Because businesses in the hospitality industry obtain and maintain confidential data from consumers–countless credit card records in particular–they will continue to be attractive targets for hackers and data thieves. Cybersecurity risks can cause a company to incur significant loss or liability. A data breach could result in the loss of important and sensitive customer information and, in some cyberevents, stolen company funds. Companies also may face liabilities to third parties under statutory and regulatory schemes, incurring costs to mitigate, remediate and comply with the liability under these statutes. Worse still, class action lawsuits have been filed around the country after data breaches, with plaintiffs alleging, among others, the loss of the value of their personal information, identity theft, invasion of privacy, negligence or contractual liability. Even when companies have had success in defeating class actions, they nonetheless incurred significant legal expenses when defending those lawsuits.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Hospitality Industry Revisited: Does Your Company Have Proper Coverage?


101387303-a0006-000338.530x298In a prior post (here), we discussed the frequency of cyber thefts in the hospitality industry in 2009. We have a decent idea of how many of you read that article. For those of you who haven’t, here’s my topic sentence: “38% of the credit card hacking events in 2009 involved the hospitality industry.” Yep. 38%.

And guess what? The hospitality industry remained a high-level target in 2010. Alright, if you’re connected to the hospitality industry, you probably knew that already. But what you might not realize is that you’re not out of the clear. And, things may be getting worse as the frequency of cyber criminality grows, and as the perpetrators become more sophisticated and cyber attacks propagate (more on that below).

Read the rest of this entry »

And Now, the Maine Event: Mitigation Costs Constitute Damages in Data-Breach Case

Businesses that necessarily require their customers to disclose credit card and personal information, beware. Just five days ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that claims by class action plaintiffs for “mitigation damages” arising from alleged negligence and breach of contract were viable. Anderson v. Hannaford Brothers Co., Nos. 10–2384, 10–2450, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21239 (1st Cir. Oct. 20, 2011).

In Anderson, the electronic payment processing system of a national grocery chain, Hannaford Brothers Co., was breached by hackers in 2007. This resulted in the dissemination of as many as 4.2 million credit card and debit card numbers, expiration dates, and security codes. Hannaford Brothers was not notified of the breach until February 27, 2008 and subsequently contained the breach on March 10, 2008. A week later, Hannaford released a statement regarding the breach and announced that over 1,800 cases of fraud resulting from the theft already had been reported.

Following Hannaford’s announcement, several financial institutions immediately cancelled customers’ debit and credit cards. Some financial institutions, which refrained from immediately canceling the credit card, monitored the accounts for unusual activity, cancelling the cards, in many cases, without notifying the customer. Customers who asked that their cards be cancelled incurred fees from issuing banks for the replacement cards.

Read the rest of this entry »

INTRODUCTION TO CANADA’S PIPEDA PRIVACY LEGISLATION

I. Overview

Canada’s privacy regime can be described as a web of legislation at both the federal and provincial/territorial level. Some commentators express concern that this web has become tangled, lacks uniformity and actually undermines the predictability and consistency that, in their view, would exist under a single (federal) privacy regime. Canada has two primary privacy statutes: the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”). The Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21 (Can.), took effect on July 1, 1983, and imposed certain privacy rights obligations on approximately 250 federal government departments and agencies by limiting the use and disclosure of personal information. The Privacy Act also gives individuals the right to access and, if necessary, correct personal information held by governmental organizations subject to the Act.

Read the rest of this entry »

Underwriters and Their Policyholders Agree: Less Is More When It Comes to Crisis Management Expenses

Doug Pollack of IDExperts recently published a blog post on cyber insurance that caught my eye. Insofar as IDExperts is a respected provider of cyber breach response services, I assumed the article would address technical issues. Upon reading the piece, however, I was disappointed to find that the article addressed insurance-related matters, including criteria for the selection of insurance products and programs, a topic typically the province of risk managers, brokers, underwriters and lawyers. Hmmm…

At the outset, the article addresses technical issues, as the author correctly suggests that “privacy, compliance and legal officers should work closely with their risk manager to ensure that the organization is getting a policy that meets its needs.” Having hooked me with that truism, I was looking forward to reading on. But that is where the technical commentary (and our common perspective) ends. From there, the author moves on to express his views (and, in my counter-view, misconceptions) on cyber insurance products and how they should operate.

Read the rest of this entry »

What is Corporate and Business Identity Theft and What Are the Risks and Damages Associated with It?

The yellow fever outbreak of summer 1798 was the worst in Philadelphia’s history. Over 5,000 residents were infected, and nearly 1,300 died, causing even President Washington to flee. On the night of September 1st, 1798, the vault at Carpenter Hall was breached and the then-massive amount of $162,821 went missing. This first bank robbery in the United States, attributed as an “inside job”, ushered in an era of robberies that turned criminals into celebrities. Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde, and John Dillinger have become legends. At present, the risk of yellow fever has been mitigated due to vaccines. The risk of bank vaults being physically robbed similarly has been reduced.

Read the rest of this entry »

Cyber Liability Insurance for Universities: Incentivizing Best Practices as a Condition to Coverage (a.k.a “Reverse Underwriting”)

Computer hacking is a constantly evolving and growing threat. While recent high-profile network security breaches at companies such as Epsilon and Sony (with crisis management and other costs estimated to range from $1 billion to multiples thereof in the case of Sony) have helped raise awareness about the need to adequately protect personal identifiable information, the problem has existed for decades.

Yet the situation has only recently begun to receive proper attention from the media, government officials, businesses, and certain segments of the insurance industry. Of course, the cost of a security breach may have something to do with that. According to a study from Marsh and the Ponemon Institute, the typical data breach in FY 2010 resulted in companies and their insurers have to pay an average of $7.2 million to deal with and remedy the situation.

One particularly alluring target for hackers has been educational institutions. While schools and universities may not immediately appear to be obvious targets, the statistics confirm that attacks against educational institutions are on the rise.

In 2007, educational institutions accounted for 25% of all reported data breaches. This number jumped to 33% in 2008. See Sarah Stephens & Shannan Fort, Cyber Liability & Higher Education, Aon Professional Risk Solutions White Paper (December 2008) Read the rest of this entry »

Credit Monitoring vs. Identity Monitoring

Today, data breaches are a frequent occurrence. Often with the disclosure of each breach comes an announcement of credit report monitoring for affected individuals for a certain time period. So what does credit monitoring really provide? Identity protection, peace of mind or simply customer goodwill?

Credit report monitoring is the checking of one’s credit history in order to detect suspicious activity or changes. Companies that provide credit monitoring typically will alert the individual to activity tied to his or her social security number, such as credit inquiries, delinquencies, negative information, employment changes and new accounts. So why does credit monitoring fail to provide identity theft protection?

1. First, individuals can receive a free credit report on an annual basis. The three credit reporting agencies, Equifax, Experian and TransUnion, have set up the following internet website, through which individuals can request free copies of their annual credit reports: https://www.annualcreditreport.com/cra/index.jsp.

2. Secondly, criminals will wait at least one year and one day in the brokering or use of stolen data if the company that sustained the privacy breach offers one year credit monitoring.

3. Third, credit monitoring primarily serves to alert, after the fact, the opening of new accounts. In turn, it typically does not warn the individual of changes with their existing credit. Hence, to the extent the persons’ current credit ratings have been adversely affected by the malicious acts of a third-party, they may go unreported and be unknown to the person whose credit has been impacted.

4. Fourth and most importantly, credit monitoring fails to protect against the malevolent conduct listed below, as outlined by the non-profit Identity Theft Resource Center:

Read the rest of this entry »