Vendor management and transactions

Subscribe to Vendor management and transactions via RSS

On August 1, 2017, US Senators unveiled a bipartisan bill to mandate baseline cybersecurity requirements for internet connected devices purchased by the federal government. Recent attacks demonstrate that connected devices, which make up the Internet of Things (“IoT”), can paralyze websites, networks, and even components of critical infrastructure.

The draft bill, introduced by a bipartisan coalition of Senators, proposes implementation of basic security requirements for interconnected devices purchased by the federal government. Under the proposed law, federal suppliers would be required to monitor and patch cybersecurity vulnerabilities.

On November 1, 2016, the Payment Card Industry (“PCI”) Security Standards Council’s newest set of Data Security Standards (“DSS”) went into effect.  Announced earlier this year, PCI DSS Version 3.2 has made a variety of changes applicable to both merchants that accept payment cards as well as “Service Providers,” which are defined as third-party entities that “store, process, or transmit cardholder data” or that “manage components such as routers, firewalls, databases, physical security, and/or servers” on behalf of merchants. Below, we provide a summary of some of the more significant changes that affect merchants and Service Providers.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit—one of the highest federal courts below the Supreme Court—recently affirmed a decision in Silverpop Systems, Inc. v. Leading Market Technologies, Inc. finding that all damages flowing from a vendor’s data breach were barred by a standard provision in IT service contracts, disclaiming all liability for consequential damages.

The court’s analysis could apply to almost any breach of data provided to a vendor under an IT service contract, and highlights the need to carefully scrutinize a proposed waiver of consequential damages when confidential or sensitive data is involved in the contract.

The Department of Health and Human Services and its Office of Civil Rights (OCR) are capping off a very active 2016. In the last 6 months, the OCR has released a new audit protocol, announced new rounds of HIPAA audits, and stepped up enforcement. The flurry of activity comes after a prolonged period of anticipation in which Covered Entities and Business Associates were working to ensure that their data protection practices comply  with the new set of HIPAA Omnibus rules.  The OCR has made clear that it is not focused merely on large institutions or hospital systems.  In August, the OCR announced that breaches affecting fewer than 500 individuals will be subject to investigation by its regional offices. Thus, even entities with small incidents or small amounts of protected health information (PHI), such as employee health plans, could see a higher rate of enforcement and a higher possibility of major fines if they fail to comply with HIPAA.  Also within the OCR’s sights are Business Associates, as the Omnibus rule empowered the OCR to directly investigate and enforce Business Associates’ compliance with HIPAA’s requirements that the Omnibus rule extended to these entities.


With its continued focus on cybersecurity, the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) recently issued a circular to all its licensed corporations (LCs) identifying key areas of concern and suggesting cybersecurity controls.

Hong Kong does not have any overarching cybersecurity legislation, and industry-specific regulatory activity in relation to cybersecurity has been limited to date. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the SFC have been the most active regulators on the topic. The SFC’s circular is the most comprehensive statement on cybersecurity by a Hong Kong regulator to date.

State education departments and legislatures are grappling with the privacy implications of the expanded use of technology in classrooms and schools serving as central data repositories of a host of personally identifying information (“PII”) on minors. In New York, a group of parents sued the state’s education department to prevent it from handing over students’ PII to third parties in 2013.  While federal law has been slow to keep pace with rapidly changing technology, in the past two years, four dozen states and counties have adopted student data privacy laws.  Colorado is the latest state to make a move in this space, with the House unanimously passing a bill that has been called one of the toughest student privacy laws in the country.

Financial institutions around the country recently received cybersecurity guidance in the form of a new appendix to the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s (“FFIEC’s”) Business Continuity Planning Booklet, which is part of its Information Technology Examination Handbook. In the guidance, the FFIEC places the onus on financial institutions, their boards of directors, and senior management to manage the cybersecurity risks, recovery services, testing programs, and “cyber resilience” associated with outsourced or third-party technology services. The guidance came just a week before another important event for financial and other institutions: the White House Summit on Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection that was held at Stanford University on Friday, February 13, 2015, and that featured, as attendees and speakers, government and industry leaders, including those from financial institutions.

The FFIEC is the federal interagency body tasked with setting forth uniform principles, standards, and forms for examining and supervising financial institutions. In that capacity, the FFIEC provides guidance on “business continuity planning” or how financial institutions will recover and resume their businesses after an unexpected disruption, which, in today’s world, necessarily includes cyber breaches and attacks.

Here is our take on the FFIEC’s recent round of updates: