Mandatory Data Breach Notification Bill Proposed in Australia
Time 2 Minute Read

On May 29, 2013, a bill, accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, was proposed in the Australian Parliament that requires businesses and government agencies that experience a serious data breach to notify affected individuals and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (“OAIC”). The proposed legislation requires organizations to notify individuals only when they are “significantly affected” by a “serious” data breach. Breaches that merely pose a “remote risk” of harm would not require notification. The factors organizations should assess when determining whether a breach is “serious” include: (1) harm to a person’s reputation, (2) economic harm, (3) financial harm, and (4) physical and psychological harm. Additionally, the bill specifies that implementing regulations may identify other situations that would require notification even if the breach does not give rise to a risk of serious harm. Organizations should notify affected individuals through the normal method of communication they have previously used to communicate with those individuals. Absent a normal method of prior communication, organizations must take reasonable steps to notify the affected individuals via email, telephone or postal mail. If passed, the legislation would become effective in March 2014.

Timothy Pilgrim, Australia’s Privacy Commissioner, noted that the number of data breach notifications received by the OAIC declined nearly 20 percent from the 2010-2011 financial year to the 2011-2012 financial year. Because research indicated that the aggregate number of data breaches has been increasing in Australia, Commissioner Pilgrim was concerned that the OAIC was only being notified in a small percentage of actual breaches. Currently, data breach notification in Australia is voluntary except in limited circumstances under eHealth laws.

View the bill and explanatory memorandum.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 2 Minute Read

On April 1, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the 2024 amendment to Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, limiting damages, applies retroactively to pending cases.

Time 1 Minute Read

As reported on the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives blog, SB 574 is a California bill that would set specific duties for attorneys who use generative artificial intelligence and would restrict how arbitrators may use such tools in decision-making.

Time 3 Minute Read

SB 574 is a California bill that would set specific duties for attorneys who use generative artificial intelligence and would restrict how arbitrators may use such tools in decision-making. It would amend provisions in the Business and Professions Code and the Code of Civil Procedure to address confidentiality, accuracy, bias, and citation verification for attorneys, and to prohibit delegation of arbitral decision-making to AI while adding disclosure and responsibility requirements for arbitrators.

Time 3 Minute Read

On Feb. 23, 2026, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced that the New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) had published proposed rules implementing the state’s Buy Now, Pay Later (“BNPL”) law.  The proposal would establish the nation’s first comprehensive regulatory framework for the rapidly growing pay-over-time consumer market niche. 

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Archives

Jump to Page