Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On May 24, 2012, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced that South Shore Hospital agreed to a consent judgment and $750,000 payment to settle a lawsuit stemming from a data breach that occurred in February 2010. At that time, South Shore Hospital shipped several boxes of unencrypted back-up tapes to a service provider in Texas to erase them. The tapes contained the personal and protected health information of approximately 800,000 individuals, including names, Social Security numbers, financial account numbers and medical diagnoses. Several of the boxes went missing and have yet to be recovered, though there is no evidence that the information on the missing tapes has been misused.

On June 1, 2012, the Attorney General of Vermont announced a series of recent legislative moves to enhance the state’s consumer protection laws, including amendments to Vermont’s security breach notification law. The changes, which were signed into law by Governor Peter Shumlin in early May, include a revised definition of “security breach,” the addition of a 45-day timing requirement for notifying affected consumers, and a requirement to notify the state Attorney General within 14 days of discovering the breach (or when notifying consumers, if sooner).

As reported in BNA’s Privacy & Security Law Report, on May 4, 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in an action against IKEA U.S. West, Inc. (“IKEA”) under the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 (the “Song-Beverly Act”). The suit alleges that IKEA violated the Song-Beverly Act by requesting that cardholders provide their ZIP codes during credit card transactions, and then recording that information in an electronic database. The Court found that the class definition was not overbroad and that IKEA’s practice of requesting ZIP codes demonstrated common questions of law best resolved through a class action.

On April 9, 2012, Maryland became the first state to pass legislation that would prevent employers from asking or forcing employees and applicants to hand over their social media login credentials. The bill, which passed the state Senate unanimously (Senate Bill 433) and the House of Delegates by a wide margin (House Bill 964), now awaits Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley’s signature.

On April 5, 2012, social media giant Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) filed a civil lawsuit against spammers and makers of spamming software claiming violations of Twitter’s user agreement and various California state and common laws. Borrowing from the popular term for unsolicited email messages, Twitter’s complaint describes “spam” on Twitter as “a variety of abusive behaviors” including “posting a Tweet with a harmful link … and abusing the @reply and @mention functions to post unwanted messages to a user.” The suit alleges that certain defendants violated Twitter’s Terms of Service, which prohibit “spam and abuse,” by distributing software tools “designed to facilitate abuse of the Twitter platform and marketed to dupe customers into violating Twitter’s user agreement.” Other defendants allegedly operated large numbers of automated Twitter accounts through which they attempted to “trick Twitter users into clicking on links to illegitimate websites.”

On March 21, 2012, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced that Maloney Properties Inc. (“MPI”), a property management firm, executed an Assurance of Discontinuance and agreed to pay $15,000 in civil penalties following an October 2011 theft of an unencrypted company-issued laptop. The laptop contained personal information of more than 600 Massachusetts residents and was left in an employee’s car overnight. MPI has indicated that it has no evidence of unauthorized access to or use of the personal information in connection with this breach.

The American Bar Association’s (“ABA’s”) House of Delegates adopted a non-binding resolution urging courts to consider foreign data protection and privacy laws when resolving discovery issues. The full text of the resolution is as follows:

“RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges that, where possible in the context of the proceedings before them, U.S. federal, state, territorial, tribal and local courts consider and respect, as appropriate, the data protection and privacy laws of any applicable foreign sovereign, and the interests of any person who is subject to or benefits from such laws, with regard to data sought in discovery in civil litigation.”

On January 24, 2011, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen and Consumer Protection Commissioner William Rubenstein announced that they had reached an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (“AVC”) with Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (“MetLife”) in connection with an incident involving the disclosure of customer personal information on the Internet. In November 2009, a MetLife employee posted the personally identifiable information of current and former MetLife customers, including their Social Security numbers, on the Internet. Following the discovery of the posting, MetLife acted to mitigate possible harm by providing credit monitoring and identity theft insurance to the affected customers.

On January 19, 2012, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced a lawsuit against Accretive Health, Inc., (“Accretive”) for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and its implementing regulations, the Minnesota Health Records Act, Minnesota’s debt collection statutes and Minnesota’s consumer protection laws. The suit, which was filed in Federal District Court in Minnesota, alleges that Accretive failed to adequately safeguard patients’ protected health information (“PHI”). This failure contributed to a July 2011 information security breach when an Accretive employee left an unencrypted laptop containing information of approximately 23,500 patients in a rental car. The laptop was stolen and has not yet been recovered.

On January 6, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted Michaels Stores, Inc.’s (“Michaels”) a motion to dismiss against a customer-plaintiff who alleged that Michaels’ in-store information collection practices violated Massachusetts law. Although the court ruled in Michaels’ favor, it found that customer ZIP codes do constitute personal information under Massachusetts state law when collected in the context of a credit card transaction. 

On November 4, 2011, Law360 interviewed Lisa J. Sotto, partner and head of the Global Privacy and Data Security practice at Hunton & Williams LLP. In a question and answer session, Sotto discussed the challenges of working with multinational companies on compliance with privacy laws, and addressed questions related to her practice and career. Read the full interview.

On October 27, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed claims that Facebook misappropriated users’ names and likenesses in promoting its “Friend Finder” feature. Friend Finder identifies potential “friends” for a Facebook user by matching his or her email contacts with users already registered with Facebook, then presenting the user with friend suggestions. Facebook promoted the feature by displaying the names and profile photos of current friends as examples of users who had found friends with Friend Finder.

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog:

California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed into law Senate Bill No. 559 (SB 559), which prohibits discrimination based on an individual’s genetic information. While SB 559 significantly expands the protections from genetic discrimination provided under the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), at this time, its impact on most California employers is thought to be limited to the potential for greater damages to be awarded under it than under its federal counterpart.

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog, on October 10, 2011, California became the seventh state to enact legislation restricting public and private employers alike from using consumer credit reports in making hiring and other personnel decisions. Assembly Bill No. 22 both adds a new provision to the California Labor Code -- Section 1024.5 -- and amends California’s Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA”). Effective January 1, 2012, California employers will be prohibited from requesting a consumer credit report for employment purposes unless they meet one of the limited statutory exceptions, and those employers meeting an exception, will be subjected to increased disclosure requirements. Connecticut, Illinois, Hawaii, Oregon, Maryland and Washington already have similar laws on the books, and many other states, as well as the federal government, are contemplating similar legislation. This trend creates a potential “credit-centric” minefield for employers that do business in any one or more of these states. In light of the multiple laws affecting their use, employers who utilize consumer credit reports in making personnel decisions should proceed cautiously. Employers must evaluate the need for these reports in making personnel decisions, review and modify their policies to ensure compliance with the myriad of regulations in this area, and monitor any new developments to ensure continued compliance.

Last month, two New Jersey judges issued opposing decisions in class action lawsuits regarding merchants’ point-of-sale ZIP code collection practices. The conflicting orders leave unanswered the question of whether New Jersey retailers are prohibited from requiring and recording customers’ ZIP codes at the point of sale during credit card transactions.

Over the past several weeks, online tracking practices involving the use of Flash cookies and ETags have been the subject of new research studies, class action lawsuits and significant media attention.

On August 31, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law amendments to that state’s security breach notification statute.  The revisions establish new content requirements for breach notification letters to California residents, and mandate notification to the state Attorney General when a breach affects more than 500 Californians.  Senate Bill 24 was the third effort by State Senator Joe Simitian to build on the landmark California breach notification law he authored in 2002.  The two previous bills he proposed were passed by the California legislature, but vetoed by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

On June 9, 2011, Lisa J. Sotto, partner and head of Hunton & Williams LLP’s Privacy and Data Security practice, spoke during the regulatory session on state and federal laws at NetDiligence’s Cyber Risk & Privacy Liability Forum in Philadelphia.  Sotto discussed recent changes to the legal landscape, emphasizing regulatory authorities’ growing interest in policy and enforcement issues and increased legislative activity on the state and federal levels.

View an excerpt from Sotto’s remarks as part of the panel discussion.

On July 29, 2011, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced a $7,500 settlement with Belmont Savings Bank following a May 2011 data breach involving the names, Social Security numbers and account numbers of more than 13,000 Massachusetts residents.  The bank has stated that it has no evidence of unauthorized access to or use of consumers’ personal information in connection with this breach.

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog, Connecticut recently became the latest state to pass a law regulating employer use of credit reports. The law, which goes into effect on October 1, 2011, prohibits employers from requiring employees or prospective employees to consent to the employer requesting their credit report as a condition of employment.  The full post includes a discussion of the exceptions to this restriction.

Read our previous posts on regulatory scrutiny of employee credit checks and a similar Illinois law that went into effect on January 1 ...

Last month, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed a health privacy bill into law that imposes new obligations exceeding the requirements in the HIPAA Privacy Rule.  The law, which will become effective on September 1, 2012, incorporates the expanded definition of the term “covered entity” in Texas’s existing health privacy law and could have a broad impact on many non-HIPAA covered entities.

On June 23, 2011, in a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled in IMS Health Inc. v. Sorrell that a Vermont law prohibiting the sale of prescriber-identifiable data to drug companies was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.  Thomas Julin, a partner at Hunton & Williams LLP, represented IMS Health in this case.  The Supreme Court’s ruling affirmed the holding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, resolving a split with the First Circuit (which upheld a similar law in New Hampshire), and likely preventing the enactment of similar restrictive laws across the country.

On June 9, 2011, two plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Google in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The complaint alleges that Google’s Android phone “engaged in illegal tracking and recording of [p]laintiffs’ movements and locations … without their knowledge or consent” and that Google violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Florida statutory and common law by failing to inform Android users that their movements were being tracked and recorded through their phones.

On May 11, 2011, in Thomas Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted in part and denied in part defendant Spokeo, Inc.’s motion to dismiss claims that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).  The ruling allows the plaintiff to continue his action against Spokeo, a website that aggregates data about individuals from both online and offline sources.

A new bill proposed in California, the Social Networking Privacy Act (the “Act”), would force social networking websites to establish default privacy settings for their users that prohibit such sites from publicly displaying most information about users without the users’ consent.  Given that many social networking websites currently have default settings that make user personal information and photos public unless the user changes those settings, the Act would represent a fundamental shift in social networking privacy.

On April 26, 2011, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Sorrell v. IMS Health, a case concerning the constitutionality of a Vermont law that restricts access to prescription drug records.  Laws enacted by New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont prohibit pharmacies from selling prescriber-identifiable information in prescription records to third parties for marketing purposes.  The Supreme Court seeks to resolve a circuit split that resulted from legal challenges to the statutes in all three states.  Thomas Julin, partner at Hunton & Williams LLP, represents IMS Health ...

On April 25, 2011, Legal Bisnow interviewed Marty Abrams, Executive Director of the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams LLP, and Hunton & Williams partner Lisa Sotto about hot topics in privacy and data protection.

Read Legal Bisnow’s article, “Hottest Practice Area?”.

As reported in BNA’s Privacy Law Watch, on April 1, 2011, a New York law went in effect requiring manufacturers of certain electronic equipment, including devices that have hard drives capable of storing personal information or other confidential data, to register with the Department of Environmental Conservation and maintain an electronic waste acceptance program.  The program must include convenient methods for consumers to return electronic waste to the manufacturer and instructions on how consumers can destroy data on the devices before recycling or disposing of them.  Retailers of covered electronic equipment will be required to provide consumers with information at the point of sale about opportunities offered by manufacturers for the return of electronic waste, to the extent they have been provided such information by the manufacturer.

On March 28, 2011, the Briar Group, LLC, owner and operator of several Boston-area bars and restaurants, reached a settlement with Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley regarding the breach of “tens of thousands” of consumers’ payment card information.  The settlement resolves a lawsuit filed in Massachusetts Superior Court alleging that in April 2009 hackers gained access to the Briar Group’s computer systems and misappropriated customer data by installing malcode which was not removed by the company until December of that year.  The complaint further alleged that the Briar Group’s lax data protection practices, such as allowing employees to share computer passwords and failing to secure network wireless connections, put customers’ personal information at risk.

On March 11, 2011, Virginia resident Peter Comstock filed a class action complaint against Netflix, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  According to the complaint, Netflix “tracks its users’ viewing habits with respect to both videos watched over the Internet...and physical movies ordered through the Internet and watched at home,” while encouraging “subscribers to rank the videos they watch.”  The complaint alleges that Netflix’s practice of maintaining customer movie rental history and recommendations, “long after subscribers cancel their Netflix subscription,” violates the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”), and California’s Customer Records Act and Unfair Competition Law.  In addition, the complaint alleges that Netflix’s failure to properly store user information and its sale of customer data to third parties led to its unjust enrichment and a breach of its fiduciary duty.  Comstock and the putative class are seeking both an injunction to stop Netflix’s current practices and monetary damages.

On February 10, 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. that ZIP codes are “personal identification information” under the state’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 (the “Credit Card Act”).  This finding effectively prohibits California businesses from requesting and recording cardholders’ ZIP codes during credit card transactions.

Connecticut’s newly-elected Attorney General George Jepsen recently announced an agreement with Google, Inc. concerning the company’s refusal to comply with a Civil Investigative Demand brought by his predecessor, freshman Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).  According to a January 28, 2011 press release, to facilitate settlement discussions with the Connecticut-led, 40-state coalition, Google will stipulate that “payload data” compiled in 2008 and 2009 “contained URLs of requested Web pages, partial or complete e-mail communications or other information, including confidential and private information” transmitted by individuals across unsecured wireless networks.

In the past two months, lawmakers in three states have introduced legislation that would expand the scope of certain security breach notification requirements.

Virginia SB 1041

On January 11, 2011, Virginia lawmakers introduced SB 1041, which would amend the state’s health breach notification statute to impose notification requirements on businesses, individuals and other private entities, in the event unencrypted or unredacted computerized medical information they own or license is reasonably believed to have been accessed and acquired by an unauthorized person.  The law currently applies only to organizations, corporations and agencies supported by public funds.  In addition to broadening the scope of the law’s applicability, the amendment would permit the Virginia Attorney General to impose a civil penalty of up to $150,000 per breach (or series of similar breaches that are discovered pursuant to a single investigation), without limiting the ability of individuals to recover direct economic damages for violations.

Update: On February 11, 2011, BNA's Privacy Law Watch reported that SB 1041 had failed and would not be carried over to the next legislative session.

In late December 2010, consumers filed two class action lawsuits against Apple Inc., claiming that several applications they downloaded from Apple’s App Store sent their personal information to third parties without their consent.  Specifically, the consumers claim that Apple allowed third party advertising networks to follow user activity through the Unique Device Identifiers that Apple assigns each device that downloads applications.  The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, also named several application developers such as Pandora and The Weather Channel as co-defendants.

On October 5, 2010, the Department of Energy (“DOE”) released a report entitled “Data Access and Privacy Issues Related to Smart Grid Technologies.”  The idea behind the Smart Grid is that electricity can be delivered more efficiently using data collected through monitoring consumers’ energy use.  In connection with the preparation of its report, the DOE surveyed industry, state and federal practices with respect to Smart Grid technologies, focusing on the issue of residential consumer data security and privacy.  The DOE noted that advanced meters or “smart meters” were a focal point of the report due to their “ability to measure, record and transmit granular individual consumption.”  That said, a Smart Grid consists of “hundreds of technologies and thousands of components, most of which do not generate data relevant to consumer privacy.”

On August 18, 2010, the Connecticut Insurance Department (the “Department”) issued Bulletin IC-25, which requires entities subject to its jurisdiction to notify the Department in writing of any “information security incident” within five calendar days after an incident is identified.  In addition to providing detailed procedures and information to be included in the notification, the Bulletin states that the Department “will want to review, in draft form, any communications proposed to be made” to affected individuals.  The Bulletin further indicates that, “depending on the type of incident and information involved, the Department will also want to have discussions regarding the level of credit monitoring and insurance protection which the Department will require to be offered to affected consumers and for what period of time.”

On August 18, 2010, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that Specific Media, Inc. violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as well as state privacy and computer security laws, by failing to provide adequate notice regarding its online tracking practices.  The suit, brought by six web users, seeks class action status and over $5 million in damages, and cites Specific Media’s use of Flash cookies to re-create deleted browser cookies as one of the offending practices.

On August 10, 2010, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed the Employee Credit Privacy Act, which prohibits most Illinois employers from inquiring about an applicant’s or employee’s credit history or using an individual’s credit history as a basis for an employment decision.  The definition of “employer” under the Act exempts banks, insurance companies, law enforcement agencies, debt collectors and state and local government agencies that require the use of credit history.

On July 21, 2010, a coalition of 38 states sent a letter to Google demanding more information about the company’s collection of data from unsecured wireless networks by its Google Street View vehicles.  The letter was sent by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal on behalf of the executive committee of a multistate working group investigating Google Street View practices.  As we reported on June 22, Blumenthal has spearheaded the nationwide investigation into Google Street View.  Among other things, the letter asks Google to identify who was responsible for the software code that allowed the Street View cars to collect data broadcast over Wi-Fi networks, and for a list of states where unauthorized data collection occurred.  The letter also asks Google for details regarding whether any of the data was disclosed to third parties or used for marketing purposes.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal recently announced that his office will lead a multistate investigation into the “deeply disturbing” unauthorized collection of personal data from wireless computer networks by Google’s Street View cars.  Attorney General Blumenthal noted that Google “must provide a complete and comprehensive explanation of how this unauthorized data collection happened, why the information was kept if collection was inadvertent and what action will prevent a recurrence.”  A significant number of states are expected to ...

Rejecting a defense based on compliance with the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), a federal court in Ohio denied a medical clinic’s motion to dismiss invasion of privacy claims following the clinic’s disclosure of medical records to a grand jury.  In Turk v. Oiler, No. 09-CV-381 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 1, 2010), plaintiff Turk had been under investigation for illegally carrying a concealed weapon and for having a weapon while under disability in violation of an Ohio law which provides that “no person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any firearm” if “[t]he person is drug dependent, in danger of drug dependence, or a chronic alcoholic.”  Defendant Cleveland Clinic, where Turk was a patient, received a grand jury subpoena requesting “medical records to include but not be limited to drug and alcohol counseling and mental issues regarding James G. Turk.”  When the Cleveland Clinic disclosed Turk’s medical records in response to this subpoena, Turk sued the clinic for violating his privacy rights.

Legislators at the federal and state levels are urging social networking websites to enhance privacy protections available to their users.  On April 27, 2010, four U.S. Senators wrote a letter to Facebook’s CEO expressing “concern regarding recent changes to the Facebook privacy policy and the use of personal data on third party websites.”  The letter urged Facebook to provide opt-in mechanisms for users, as opposed to lengthy opt-out processes, and highlighted default sharing of personal information, third-party advertisers’ data storage and instant personalization features as three areas of concern.

On April 20, 2010, the Department of Commerce (“DOC”) issued a Notice of Inquiry to solicit public feedback “on the impact of current privacy laws in the United States and around the world on the pace of innovation in the information economy.”  The aim is to understand “whether current privacy laws serve consumer interests and fundamental democratic values.”  To this end, the DOC poses a number of questions, including:

• Is the notice and choice approach to consumer privacy outmoded?  Would consumers be better served by a “use-based” model?
• How does compliance with ...

On April 7, 2010, Mississippi became the 46th state to enact a data security breach notification law.  The law, which will take effect July 1, 2011, applies to the unauthorized acquisition of unencrypted electronic files, media, databases or computerized data containing personal information of any Mississippi resident.  The law contains a harm threshold specifying that notification is not required if it can be reasonably determined that the breach will not likely result in harm to affected individuals.  The enactment of this law leaves Alabama, Kentucky, New Mexico and South Dakota ...

On March 30, 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled for the former employee in Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc. on the employee’s claim that state common privacy law protected certain of her emails from review by the employer.

The Attorney General of Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, is investigating an alleged breach of medical records at Griffin Hospital in Derby, Connecticut.  The hospital believes that a formerly affiliated radiologist gained unauthorized access to its digital Picture Archiving and Communications System (“PACS”), which stores patient information, including names, exam descriptions and medical record numbers.  In February, the hospital began receiving inquiries from patients who had been contacted by the radiologist to promote professional services offered at another medical facility.  In response to patient inquiries, the hospital conducted an internal investigation that revealed several instances of unauthorized access to the PACS system.  The hospital subsequently notified Attorney General Blumenthal.

In 2009, for the first time in three years, more publicly reported data security breaches were caused by hackers than by other sources, such as insider theft.  The nonprofit Identity Theft Resource Center (“ITRC”) tracks breaches involving five categories of data loss: (i) “data on the move,” such as lost laptops; (ii) accidental exposure; (iii) insider theft; (iv) losses involving subcontractors; and (v) hacking.  The ITRC’s 2009 Breach Report analyzed 498 publicly reported breaches affecting over 222 million total records, concluding that hacking may be on the rise.

After several delays and revisions, the Massachusetts information security regulations, entitled “Standards for the Protection of Personal Information of Residents of the Commonwealth,” will take effect on March 1, 2010. The regulations apply to entities that own or license personal information about Massachusetts residents. “Personal information” is defined as a combination of a resident’s first and last name and Social Security number, driver’s license or state ID number, or financial account number or payment card number that permits access to the individual’s financial account.

Cloud computing raises complex legal issues related to privacy and information security.  As legislators and regulators around the world grapple with the privacy and data security implications of cloud computing, companies seeking to implement cloud-based solutions should closely monitor this rapidly evolving legal landscape for developments.  In an article published on February 3, 2010, Lisa Sotto, Bridget Treacy and Melinda McLellan explore U.S. and EU legal requirements applicable to data stored by cloud providers, and highlight some of the risks associated with the use ...

In a lawsuit he described as “[s]adly . . . historic,” Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal sued Health Net of Connecticut, Inc. for allegedly failing to secure private patient medical records and financial information involving hundreds of thousands of Connecticut enrollees and promptly notify consumers endangered by the security breach.  The case marks the first action by a state attorney general under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”) Act to enforce provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”).  The suit also alleges a violation of Connecticut’s breach notification statute.

On January 1, 2010, two important state data security and privacy laws took effect in Nevada and New Hampshire.  The laws create new obligations for most companies that do business in Nevada and for health care providers and business associates in New Hampshire.

On November 9, 2009, Connecticut’s Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, announced an investigation of whether Blue Cross and Blue Shield (“BCBS”) violated Connecticut’s data breach notification law by waiting until two months after a data breach had occurred to notify affected Connecticut residents.  The data breach, which Attorney General Blumenthal called “one of the most sizable and significant in Connecticut’s history,” involved the theft of a laptop containing confidential unencrypted data from the car of a BCBS employee in late August.  BCBS notified affected Connecticut residents of the breach in late October.

On October 30, as reported by the Bureau of National Affairs (“BNA”), the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation stated that final amendments to its information security regulations had been filed with the Massachusetts Secretary of State.  The Standards for the Protection of Personal Information of Residents of the Commonwealth have been the subject of much commentary and a series of amendments as regulators seek to address concerns expressed by businesses over the stringent and specific nature of the regulations.  The most recent round of amendments was announced August 17, 2009.

On September 9, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine dismissed a lawsuit challenging the validity of the Act to Prevent Predatory Marketing Practices Against Minors (the “Act”), which is set to take effect on September 12, 2009.  The Act prohibits businesses from knowingly collecting or receiving a minor’s health-related information or personal information for marketing purposes without first obtaining verifiable parental consent.  Businesses are also prohibited from using any health-related information or personal information regarding a minor for ...

New Hampshire recently enacted legislation restricting the use and disclosure of protected health information (“PHI”). As of January 1, 2010, health care providers and their business associates will be obligated to notify affected individuals of disclosures of PHI that are allowed under federal law, but are prohibited under the New Hampshire statute.

The New Hampshire law requires health care providers and their business associates to (i) obtain authorization for the use or disclosure of PHI for “marketing” and (ii) offer individuals an opt-out opportunity for the use or disclosure of PHI for fundraising purposes. In addition, it prohibits the disclosure of PHI for marketing (even with an authorization) or fundraising by voice mail, unattended facsimile, or through other methods of communication that are not secure.

On August 17, 2009, Massachusetts announced revisions to its information security regulations and extended the deadline for compliance with those regulations.  In the press release announcing the revised regulations, the Undersecretary of the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation noted the concerns of small business leaders regarding the impact on their companies, stating that the updated regulations “feature a fair balance between consumer protections and business realities.”

On September 12, 2009, Maine’s Act to Prevent Predatory Marketing Practices Against Minors (the “Act”) will take effect.  The Act prohibits businesses from knowingly collecting or receiving a minor’s health-related information or personal information for marketing purposes without first obtaining verifiable parental consent.  Businesses are also prohibited from using any health-related information or personal information regarding a minor for the purpose of marketing a product or service to the minor.  Pursuant to the Act, the use of information in such a manner is a ...

July saw a flurry of activity involving data security breach notification laws. 

• On July 1, breach notification laws in Alaska and South Carolina went into effect.
• On July 9, Missouri became the 45th state to enact a data breach notification law. 
• On July 22, Senator Patrick Leahy reintroduced a comprehensive federal data security bill calling it one of his “highest legislative priorities.”
• On July 27, North Carolina amended its breach notification law to require notification of the state attorney general any time consumers are notified of a breach involving their personal information.  The amendment also included content requirements for the attorney general’s notice.

Kaiser Permanente Bellflower Hospital has again been penalized for failing to prevent unauthorized access to confidential patient information.  On July 16, 2009, the California Department of Public Health announced that it had levied administrative penalties totaling $187,500 on the hospital after it was determined that eight Kaiser employees had compromised the privacy of four patients' medical information.  On May 14, 2009, the same facility was fined $250,000 -- the maximum allowable penalty under the new state health privacy provisions that came into effect on January 1st -- for violations related to unauthorized employee access to the medical records of Nadya Suleman.  The latest fine included a $25,000 penalty for each of four patients whose medical records allegedly were breached, plus $17,500 per incident for five subsequent alleged breaches of those medical records after the first.

On July 1, 2009, new laws will take effect in Alaska and South Carolina that will require entities that have experienced data security breaches involving personal information to notify affected individuals of the breaches.  With these additions, a total of 44 states, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, will have active breach notification laws in place.  There are no breach notification laws in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico and South Dakota.

As of January 1, 2010, Nevada law will require businesses to use encryption when data storage devices that contain personal information are moved beyond the physical or logical controls of the business, in addition to continuing to require that personal information be encrypted if it is transferred outside the secure system of the business. The new law repeals the existing Nevada encryption law, which will remain in effect until January 1, 2010. (For more information on the existing Nevada encryption law, please see our previous Client Alert.) The new law also mandates compliance ...

On May 19, Maine Governor John Baldacci signed legislation limiting the time that breach notification may be delayed following a determination by law enforcement that providing notice will not compromise a criminal investigation. The provision, which will take effect 90 days after the close of the Legislature's 2009 session (scheduled to occur on June 17), will limit the permissible delay to seven business days.

Pursuant to Maine's current breach notification law, entities that become aware of a breach "shall conduct in good faith a reasonable and prompt investigation to ...

On May 14, 2009, the California Department of Public Health issued an Administrative Penalty Notice to the Kaiser Foundation Hospital — Bellflower for patient medical information privacy violations. Although the state did not identify the affected patient by name, the facts and circumstances described in the Notice correspond to the case of Nadya Suleman, the single mother of six who gave birth to octuplets at Bellflower in January 2009. The hospital was fined $250,000 for failure to prevent unlawful or unauthorized access to, or use or disclosure of, a patient’s medical ...

Google Earth and Google Street View, two popular applications offered by Google that enable users to view detailed satellite images of buildings or street-level panoramas of major roads and neighborhoods, have recently engendered controversy.  In the United States, legislators in California and Texas have introduced bills directed at Google Earth and other similar applications.  The proposed California bill prohibits operators of commercial Internet websites that make a “virtual globe browser available to members of the public” from providing “aerial or satellite photographs or imagery” of schools, religious facilities or government buildings, unless those images have been blurred.  Violators could be fined at least $250,000 and natural persons who knowingly violate the provisions could face imprisonment between one to three years.  The proposed Texas bill prohibits any person from publishing on the Internet “an image capable of zooming into greater detail than that of an aerial photograph taken without a magnifying lens 300 feet or higher of private property not visible from the public right-of-way,” and classifies the offense as a Class B misdemeanor, which is punishable by a fine up to $2,000 or 180 days in prison.

On February 12, 2009, the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation issued a revised version of its information security regulations and extended the compliance deadline from May 1, 2009 to January 1, 2010. This is the second time Massachusetts has extended the deadline; previously, the deadline was changed to May 1, 2009 in consideration of the economic climate.

The New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs has published a pre-proposal of rules relating to the protection of personal information (“PPR”) and is accepting comments on the PPR until February 13, 2009, after which it will formally propose rules. The PPR comes nearly a year after the state withdrew earlier proposed rules (the “Original Proposal”) that drew fire from the business community for the burdens they would have imposed. Among other obligations, the PPR would (i) require implementation of a comprehensive written security program; (ii) impose security breach ...

A recent federal court decision offers a detailed analysis of several theories of liability for violations of a privacy policy.  Pinero v. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc., No. 08-3535, 2009 WL 43098 (E.D. La. January 7, 2009). 

Plaintiff Pinero visited Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in Louisiana to have her tax returns prepared.  During her visit, she provided Jackson Hewitt with confidential information such as her Social Security number, date of birth and driver’s license number.  Pinero signed Jackson Hewitt’s privacy policy, which stated that Jackson Hewitt had policies and procedures in place, including physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards, to protect customers' private information.  Pinero alleged that she relied on this statement in her decision to turn over her information.

Two California medical privacy laws became effective on January 1, 2009.  The laws, A.B. 211 and S.B. 541, create new obligations for health care providers and facilities in California to protect against unlawful or unauthorized access to patient medical information.  In contrast, other medical privacy regulations, including the Privacy Rule promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), focus only on the unauthorized use or disclosure of protected health information.

A California state Court of Appeal has ruled that a California law barring merchants from collecting “personal identification information” in connection with certain credit card transactions does not prohibit the collection of a five-digit ZIP Code alone. Party City Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego County, No. D053530, 2008 WL 5264023 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2008).

New York State recently enacted legislation restricting the use of Social Security numbers (“SSNs”) by employers. The legislation takes effect on January 3, 2009.

In a continuing effort to combat identity theft, New York recently enacted an amendment to the Penal Law making it a crime to impersonate another person or pretend to be a public servant by means of online communication.

Specifically, New York’s Internet impersonation law amends section 190.25 of the Penal Law by adding Subdivision 4, making it a crime to impersonate another person by electronic means, including through use of a website, with the intent to obtain a benefit or injure or defraud another person. It also prohibits using such electronic means to pretend to be a public ...

Massachusetts recently announced that it is extending the deadline for compliance with new state data security regulations. In consideration of the current economic climate, Massachusetts has extended its original compliance deadline of January 1, 2009. The new compliance deadline will be phased in. By May 1, 2009, companies that are subject to the regulations must generally comply with the new standards and must contractually ensure the compliance of their third-party service providers. In addition, by May 1, 2009, covered businesses must encrypt laptops containing personal information. By January 1, 2010, companies are required to have a written certification of compliance from their third-party service providers and must encrypt other company portable devices, such as memory sticks and PDAs.