New York continued its active legislative session last week, this time by expanding its data breach notification law. The SHIELD Act (Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security), signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo on July 25, 2019, notably expands the definition of a data breach and the scope of what constitutes personal information. But the law could have gone farther; the state did not enact a private right of action, as has California, and which several other states are considering. New York’s action does, however, contain several other very significant provisions in the context of data breaches involving New York residents.
Just as companies are reaching the straightway in their efforts to get ready to comply with the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) by January 1, Nevada has burst ahead with a privacy law that will take effect before the CCPA. On May 29, 2019, Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak signed SB 220 into law, amending Nevada’s existing law that requires an operator of an Internet website or online service to provide a privacy notice to consumers detailing certain of the operator’s privacy practices; SB 220 goes into effect on October 1, 2019.1 SB 220 allows consumers to opt-out of operators of Internet websites and online services selling personally identifiable information to other entities for monetary consideration and will require both legal and operational changes for businesses. Operators, as defined by the law, must create a “designated request address” that allows consumers to submit requests prohibiting sale of information collected about the consumer, and operators must respond to the requests within 60 days.
Since its adoption last year, U.S. financial institutions have been confronted with the challenge of planning their compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”)1. The CCPA becomes effective in two stages—January 1, 2020 and July 1, 2020 (or possibly sooner depending upon the date the California Attorney General adopts implementing regulations).2Regrettably, considerable confusion exists within the financial industry about the scope of the CCPA and the obligations it imposes on financial institutions.In an effort to provide our financial intermediary clients and friends with a workable summary of a financial institution’s obligations—and in particular for financial institutions that do not have a physical presence in California—this Alert is intended to assist in identifying coverage considerations, and provide a practical approach to the development of a project plan that will demonstrate reasonable compliance with the CCPA’s admittedly ambiguous set of requirements and obligations.
On Thursday, March 16, 2019, the California Senate Appropriations Committee held in Committee SB 561, which would have greatly expanded the private right of action (i.e., the ability to bring private class actions) available under the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”). SB 561 was introduced in February by California Attorney General (“AG”) Xavier Becerra and Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson. Notably, the bill sought to amend the existing private right of action to cover all violations of the CCPA, as opposed to merely data breaches. Additionally, the bill would have discontinued the 30-day cure period, whereby businesses were immunized from penalization by the AG to the extent they were able to cure an alleged violation within 30-days’ notice thereof, and would have eliminated businesses’ and third parties’ entitlement to seek interpretive guidance regarding compliance from the AG (and instead would authorize the AG to publish general guidance).
As companies were getting up-to-speed on the effects of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) last year, California quickly enacted its own privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA” or “Act”) last June. We address below the high risk associated with the CCPA and its interaction with regulations in key U.S. industries. The fast-passed legislation was designed to avoid a November 2018 ballot initiative on the subject, and was plagued by errors and ambiguities that require robust clarification. The Act’s take-away, however, was abundantly clear – California consumers have a right to know what personal data companies are collecting and are empowered to bring a private right of action for a data breach (and even potentially for other violations of the Act).
Cyber-security has become – or perhaps should be – a key area of concern for every enterprise. The risks are substantial for the firm, its shareholders, executives and customers as recent cases illustrate. Every enterprise large or small is a potential victim. The losses can and often are substantial not just in dollars but also in trust, customers and more. The Commission has issued guidance. The agency has also brought enforcement actions.
Now, however, the Commission has issued a report based on nine investigations of firms involved in a variety of industries, cautioning about cyber risks in the context of the firm’s obligations to maintain proper internal controls. Report of Investigation Pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Exchange Act Regarding Certain Cyber-Related Frauds Perpetrated Against Public Companies, October 16, 2018.
In what could be a harbinger of things to come for business models negatively impacted by the throttling of data flow under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), Nielsen Holdings (“Nielsen”) was named in a putative class action complaint on August 22, 2018, for allegedly misrepresenting the anticipated effects of GDPR on Nielsen’s business model. Importantly, the class action takes aim not at Nielsen’s ability to comply with GDPR, but rather the effects of GDPR on the big data platforms used by Nielsen. Nielsen provides consumer market analytics, particularly regarding digital media and e-commerce. When big data platforms and associated analytic providers began restricting access to consumer data in order to comply with GDPR, it apparently negatively impacted Nielsen’s business model. Those effects surfaced in Nielsen’s latest Q2 financial report, causing its stock to drop by more than 25 percent, and giving rise to the class action claims.
Financial institutions that are grappling with how the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”)may impact their U.S. operations should also be keeping a close eye on the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”). The CCPA, or Assembly Bill (“AB”) No. 375, which was passed on June 28, 2018 and is set to take effect in 2020, mirrors some GDPR protections by providing California residents greater control over the dissemination of their personal data, including the option of barring companies from selling their data.
On June 1, China’s new Cybersecurity law took effect. The new law applies not only to domestic Chinese companies but has wide-ranging implications for U.S. and other foreign companies doing business in China.
Companies should take three steps now to ensure use of the Defend Trade Secrets Act.
In May, President Barack Obama signed into law the Defend Trade Secrets Act that creates a federal civil cause of action for the misappropriation of trade secrets. This new law amends the Economic Espionage Act, which makes it a federal crime to steal and use trade secrets. Title 18 U.S.C. 1831, et. seq. For companies that depend on confidential information to provide them a competitive edge, there are several proactive steps they should take to ensure their use and the full benefits of this statute if their trade secrets are stolen.
Most significantly, the Defend Trade Secrets Act, unlike the state trade secrets laws, provides for an ex parte “order for the seizure of property necessary to prevent the propagation or dissemination of the trade secret,” upon a showing of “exceptional circumstance.” Traditional state court equitable remedies are limited to a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The law also makes the theft, possession and use of trade secrets a predicate act for the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Statue, which can form the basis of a civil RICO action for treble damages and attorney fees. (In the past, federal courts have been reluctant under most circumstances to find a RICO “pattern” for trade secrets theft as part of a scheme to defraud based on the mail and wire fraud statutes. See, e.g., Bro-Tech Corp. v. Thermax (E.D. Pa. 2009).