Industry: Tax-Exempt Organizations

As we previously detailed, the coronavirus pandemic has expanded opportunities for nefarious actors to exploit the digital vulnerabilities of individuals, local governments, industries, organizations, and essential services as they rapidly adapt to the public health crisis. Recent reports have confirmed that attacks and cyber scams associated with the pandemic are in fact on the rise.

The New York State Senate recently passed The Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security Act, or SHIELD Act, leaving only the Governor’s signature as the final step to the SHIELD Act becoming the country’s newest—and one of the most stringent—breach notification laws.  Given Governor Cuomo’s previous support for robust cybersecurity protections, New York may soon join a growing number of states beefing up their notification statutes.

Last week, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) sent notices to companies that had not yet certified their compliance with the DFS Cybersecurity Regulation. DFS not-so-gently reminds companies to submit a Notice of Exemption or a Certificate of Compliance. A copy of that notice is now available online.

The federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (“CFAA”) has generated controversy and disagreement among courts and commentators regarding the scope of its application.  The statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, which provides for both criminal and civil penalties, prohibits accessing a computer or protected computer “without authorization” or in a manner “exceeding authorized access.”  Courts are divided as to the meaning of these phrases, yet the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined the opportunity to resolve the circuit split that has developed, leaving the exact scope of this important statute in question.

In one of the first federal appellate court rulings following the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Robins v. Spokeo, the Eighth Circuit delivered a pyrrhic victory for customers victimized by a data breach.  In Kuhns v. Scottrade, the Eighth Circuit ruled that, although the plaintiff had established standing to pursue a claim against Scottrade, Inc. resulting from a data breach that occurred in 2013, the customer failed to sufficiently allege that the brokerage firm breached its contractual obligations and affirmed dismissal of the case.

Companies subject to New York’s Department of Financial Services (DFS) new cybersecurity regulation should be preparing to comply with the first round of requirements by the upcoming August 28th deadline: enacting a cybersecurity program and policies, implementing user access privileges, designating a Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), employing qualified personnel, and implementing an incident response plan.

New York’s powerful Department of Financial Services (DFS) upended cybersecurity regulation with its new and sweeping “Cybersecurity Requirements for Financial Services Companies,” which took effect on March 1, 2017.  But is the financial industry ready and equipped to comply with this detailed regulation?  According to a recent survey published by Ponemon Institute and sponsored by Fasoo, the answer is an unequivocal “no.”

In our series of posts leading up to the August 28th deadline for the first phase of requirements under New York’s cybersecurity regulation, the Patterson Belknap team looks at issues that institutions face as they implement the new rules.

In complying with the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) cybersecurity regulation, financial institutions have a choice.  They can either employ “continuous monitoring” or, instead, conduct annual “penetration testing” and bi-annual “vulnerability assessments.”

In our series of posts leading up to the August 28th deadline for the first phase of requirements under New York’s cybersecurity regulation, the Patterson Belknap team looks at issues that institutions face as they implement the new rules.

Justice Shirley Kornreich recently issued one of the few New York state court decisions  that address the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”).  Spec Simple, Inc. v. Designer Pages Online LLC,  No. 651860/2015, 2017 BL 160865 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 10, 2017).  The CFAA criminalizes both accessing a computer without authorization and exceeding authorized access and thereby obtaining information from any protected computer.  Id. at *3 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)). The CFAA also provides a civil cause of action to any person who suffers damage or loss because of a violation of the CFAA.  Id. at *4 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g)).  As discussed below, the decision provides a helpful look into the interpretation of CFAA claims in the future.

Back in December 2013, a U.S. magistrate issued a seemingly routine warrant in a narcotics case demanding that Microsoft turn over messages from a customer’s email account that resided on a server in Ireland.  That warrant, which issued under a 1986 law called the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2703, is still being debated today.

In a sweeping statement of its data security expectations for organizations that maintain consumer information, the Federal Trade Commission on Friday found that LabMD, the defunct medical testing lab, failed to employ adequate data security safeguards in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, even though there was no indication that any information had been misused or compromised.

In April 2016, the sensitive personal medical information of NFL players was stolen from the car of a trainer who had left the files in a backpack in his locked car.  In 2014, Safeway, Inc. settled charges brought by the State of California stemming from an investigation concerning the improper disposal of hard copies of customer information.  In 2014, an insurance company was exposed when maintenance workers who were supposed to move four boxes of member records between floors, instead threw them out.  In 2011, sensitive information regarding an NYPD task force was found in a Manhattan trash can.

For months, the technology and business communities have been waiting anxiously for a Federal appeals court ruling on whether American companies can be forced to turn over customer information to U.S. law enforcement when that information is stored on servers abroad.  It’s the result of a legal appeal filed last year by Microsoft Corporation that was argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit more than seven months ago.

When it comes to buying cyber insurance, businesses might be right in taking comfort that they have mitigated the financial risks that come with a data breach.  Just not all of them.

For businesses and nonprofit organizations searching for cyber insurance, it is important to know if your coverage limits are adequate.  Whether you are in the market for a new policy or renewing an existing one, you should explore whether your policy has a “sub-limit” that places limitations on your losses and liabilities that may be covered.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) top privacy official said today that a “clear mandate” from top management is the foundation of an organization’s ability to establish and implement an effective data security and privacy plan.

In a long-running and highly contentious data security enforcement action against LabMD, a small medical testing laboratory, the Federal Trade Commission was handed a stunning defeat late Friday.  In a 92-page Initial Decision, Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell dismissed the FTC’s case against LabMD – after a full administrative trial – based on the Commission’s failure to prove it was “likely” that consumers had been substantially injured in two alleged data security incidents dating back nearly seven years.

In a test of the Federal Trade Commission’s authority to police cybersecurity, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday ruled that the agency has broad power to take action against private sector companies which fail to take adequate steps to protect customer data.

In Federal Trade Commission v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, the Third Circuit upheld the FTC’s authority to pursue a lawsuit against the hotel and resort chain based on allegations that it failed to maintain reasonable data security standards.  After three successful cyber-attacks on Wyndham’s computer networks led to the theft of thousands of customers’ records, the FTC sued Wyndham in federal court, alleging that Wyndham’s cybersecurity practices were “unfair and deceptive trade practices.”  The district court denied Wyndham’s motion to dismiss, finding that the Commission had the authority to regulate data security practices.  On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, holding that the unfairness prong of Section 5 of the FTC Act authorized the FTC to bring enforcement actions for lax data security practices.

This is the first federal appellate decision finding that the FTC has broad cybersecurity enforcement authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act.  Since 2005, the FTC has settled 53 cases against companies related to data security.  Wyndham is one of two companies to challenge the FTC’s authority in this area.  The ruling opens the door for the FTC to commence additional enforcement actions against companies that do not employ reasonable data security practices, especially at a time when Congress has failed to pass comprehensive data security legislation.