Indiana has made a minor amendment to its data breach notification law. Starting July 1, companies who are obligated to notify under the law must do so (to affected individuals and the Indiana Attorney General) without unreasonable delay, but no later than 45 days after discovery of the breach. This changes the current time frame, which is “without unreasonable delay.” Indiana joins many other states that impose a specific timing requirement, in particular no later than 45 days after determining there has been a breach. For example, Alabama, Maryland, Ohio, and Wisconsin (among several others) all require notice to individuals no later than 45 days from discovery.

Continue Reading Indiana Breach Notification Law Amended, Changes Effective July 1, 2022

President Biden recently signed into law the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 as a part of a larger omnibus appropriations bill.  The new law sets out mandatory reporting requirements for critical infrastructure entities in the event of certain cyber incidents and ransomware payments.  Under the Act, once implementing regulations are issued (which are not expected this year) covered entities will be subject to two new reporting requirements:  
Continue Reading Cybersecurity Act Signed Into Law Creates New Reporting Obligations

The State Attorneys General in New York and New Jersey recently settled with four companies over alleged HIPAA noncompliance following phishing attacks. The New Jersey settlements were brought against three NJ-based cancer care providers after a phishing attack on several employees’ email accounts. That attack resulted in the unauthorized access of the PHI of 105,200 patients. Although the providers had implemented safeguards, the NJAG concluded that those measures were insufficient to protect against reasonably anticipated threats. In particular, the NJAG was concerned that an accurate and thorough risk assessment had not been conducted, nor was there sufficient employee training. As part of the settlement, the providers agreed to pay $425,000.

Continue Reading States Catch Health Care Entities Taking the Bait in Phishing Attacks

The Colorado AG recently issued guidance on practices companies should consider to safeguard consumer data. This guidance was issued in response to companies asking what “reasonable” security means. While noting that the standard is a flexible one and calls for case-by-case determinations, the AG highlighted activities it will weigh when making a decision on whether companies are acting reasonably to safeguard information.
Continue Reading Colorado AG Issues Guidance on Data Security Best Practices

Federal banking regulators issued a final rule that impacts how banks and other regulated entities report certain data incidents.  Those subject to these new reporting requirements include U.S. banks and bank service providers. The rule is effective April 1, 2022, and covered entities are expected to comply with the final rule by May 1, 2022. The new requirements reflect ongoing concern to identify and stop computer security incidents before they become systemic.
Continue Reading Beginning in May 2022 Banks Will Have 36 Hours to Disclose Certain Types of Cyber Incidents

California recently updated both its data security and breach notice laws to include genetic data. With the passage of AB 825, the data security law now includes in the definition of “personal information” genetic data. The information needs to be “reasonably protected.” While many other states have similar “reasonable protection” requirements in their data security laws, California is one of a handful to specifically list genetic information.

Continue Reading California Broadens Security and Breach Laws, Includes Genetic Data

In the wake of increased ransomware attacks over the course of the last several months, the US Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has updated a guidance it released last year on potential sanction risks if facilitating ransomware payments. As indicated in the original guidance, OFAC has designated several threat actors as “malicious cyber attackers,” including the developers of Cryptolocker, SamSam, WannaCry, and Dridex. OFAC has indicated that it will impose sanctions on those who financially (or otherwise support) these actors, including by making ransomware payments to them. Sanctions can range from non-public (for example No Action Letters or Cautionary Letters) to public actions (including for example payment of civil monetary penalties).

Continue Reading Do You Have a Risk-Based Sanctions Compliance Program?: In the Event of a Ransomware Attack, OFAC Wants to Know

The FTC recently settled with a surveillance app operator over allegations that the company facilitated the secret harvesting of personal information. According to the FTC, the main users of Support King, LLC’s “SpyFone” app were bad actors who used the tool to remotely monitor users’ physical and digital activities. The FTC dismissed the company’s argument that the users were employers and parents as a “pretext.” It felt neither group would want to use the product, which to install required minimizing the device’s security settings and potentially voiding the device warranty.

Continue Reading FTC Surveillance App Settlement Signals Concern Over Deceptive Tracking

The New York Department of Financial Service recently clarified security incident notification requirements and the use of multi-factor authentication. On its FAQ page, the NYDFS added two new questions and answers for financial services companies subject to 23 NYCRR Part 500.

Continue Reading NYDFS FAQ Provides Clarity on Breach Notification and Security Requirements