Kade N. Olsen, Associate

Last week, a magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Virginia held that a breach report prepared by Mandiant (a digital forensics investigator, among other things) in response to the Capital One data breach was not protected by the attorney work product doctrine. 

On October 11, 2019, the California Attorney General released its long-anticipated Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Action and the text of its proposed regulations for the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), along with an Initial Statement of Reasons for the proposed regulations.  The documents are not a short read, with the proposed regulations covering 24 pages, the Notice 16 pages, and the Statement of Reasons another 47 pages. 

It’s been almost two years since New York’s top banking regulator implemented one of the nation’s most stringent cybersecurity regulations.  Since then, thousands of financial institutions have recruited chief information security officers, implemented cybersecurity programs, performed penetration testing, and imposed encryption requirements on their most sensitive information.

Yesterday, by e-mail and on its website, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it would hold “six statewide forums to collect feedback” in advance of the rulemaking process for the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).  The announcement did not include proposed rules or regulations, which must be adopted by July 1, 2020.

Late last week, the Office of Civil Rights for the Department of Health and Human Services (OCR) announced a $16 million settlement with health-insurance company Anthem, Inc. The settlement amount is nearly three times larger than any prior settlement with the OCR.

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s approval of a $17 million settlement between Target Corp. and consumers whose credit card data was compromised in the 2013 data breach. In one of the largest data breaches to hit U.S. retailers, hackers stole information from 40 million credit and debit cards during the 2013 holiday season.

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.

At the end of last year, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted an Insurance Data Security Model Law.  The “purpose and intent” of the law is to “establish[]  standards for data security and investigation and notification of data security applicable to insurance providers.”

Yesterday, a federal district court in Arizona denied in part and granted in part Banner Health’s motion to dismiss class action claims arising from a 2016 data breach. 

Yesterday, New York’s top financial regulator asked state-chartered banks and insurers to take immediate precautions to protect consumers and the financial markets “in light of the cybersecurity attack” at Equifax Inc.

As we have discussed in previous posts, Equifax Inc. suffered a cybersecurity breach potentially affecting 143 million individuals in the United States.  Although Equifax’s investigation is ongoing, the data at risk includes Social Security numbers, birth dates, and addresses.  Equifax has also said that the breach may have involved driver’s license numbers, credit card numbers, and “certain dispute documents with personal identifying information for approximately 182,000 U.S. consumers.”  That leaves just about everyone asking: What should we do?

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.

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.

Over the last few months, the New York Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) cybersecurity regulation has undergone multiple revisions.  But late last week, DFS issued its final regulation, which will go into effect on March 1, 2017.

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the class action settlement between Target Corp. and consumers whose card data was compromised in the company’s 2013 data breach. 

Today, Reuters reported that the New York Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) will delay the effective date of its new cybersecurity regulation.  According to a “person familiar with the matter,” the DFS will publish a new version of the cyber security regulation on December 28, 2016, and the effective date for the rule will now be March 1, 2017. 

This is our final installment in a three-part series examining the New York State Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) new cybersecurity regulation.  In this installment, we provide an overview of the regulation’s impact on third-party vendors and business partners, including law firms.

This is the first installment in a three-part series examining the New York State Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) new cybersecurity regulation.  The Patterson Belknap Privacy and Data Security Team has studied the regulation, its legislative and regulatory underpinnings, and practical consequences.

Banner Health recently announced that hackers may have gained “unauthorized access to patient information” and “payment card data” from approximately 3.7 million patients, health plan members, food and beverage customers, and physicians.  The breach has been reported as the largest for a hospital in 2016. 

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided one of the Term’s most closely watched cases: Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.  The 6-2 decision, while far from sweeping, creates a hurdle for plaintiffs in “no-injury” class actions.  

On February 22, 2016, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) closed the public comment period on its recently proposed enhanced cybersecurity rules for derivatives clearing house organizations, trading platforms, designated contract markets, and swap data repositories.