data breach

Subscribe to data breach via RSS

On July 23 and 25, 2018, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) held public briefings about an attempt by a state-sponsored Russian hacking group to target control systems for U.S. electrical grids and power plants. DHS’ webinar explained that the hackers obtained access to vendors providing computer services to electric utilities companies. This initial access enabled the hackers to gain entry to power company control systems through a complex series of security compromises lasting quite some time.

On Thursday, April 26, 2018, the Massachusetts Senate unanimously passed a data breach protection bill that strengthens consumer protections after security breaches involving consumer credit reporting agencies.  If passed, the proposed legislation would amend Massachusetts’s current breach notification law.  The bill aims to help consumers protect their sensitive information before, during, and after a data breach.

On March 8, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued its highly anticipated decision in In re Zappos.com, Inc., finding that allegations of future risk of identity theft from a data breach are sufficient to confer standing. This decision fuels an ongoing circuit split, pitting the D.C., Sixth, Seventh and now Ninth Circuits against the Second, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits over whether the mere exposure of personal information – without actual identity theft or credit/debit card fraud – establishes Article III standing.

Earlier this month, Delaware revamped its data breach notification law, with changes to go into effect April 14, 2018.  Most notably, the new law requires any entity that has suffered a data breach that includes social security numbers to provide free credit monitoring services to affected residents for one year. The entity must provide all information necessary for the resident to enroll in such services as well as instructions for how to implement a credit freeze. This makes Delaware the second state to require credit monitoring services be provided to residents at no cost following a breach. (Connecticut has a similar provision.)

On May 23, 2017, it was announced that Target Corporation had settled the investigation initiated by the Attorneys General[1] of 47 states and the District of Columbia resulting from its 2013 data security incident.  Besides the $18.5 million being paid (the largest State AG data breach settlement amount to date), it is the promised remedial measures that are of most interest to those following data breach enforcement actions.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania last month dismissed a class action lawsuit, Dittman v. UPMC, brought by employees of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (“UPMC”) for a 2014 data breach.  The breach impacted nearly 62,000 UPMC employees and resulted in at least 788 fraudulent tax filings. The court held that UPMC had no duty to safeguard the electronically-stored personal and financial information of its employees. This decision presents a practical analysis of the challenges facing large employers who need to store employee information electronically while also guarding against the ever-present risk of a data breach.