Noting the “astounding” statistics on the use of smartphones and other mobile devices to “shop, bank, play, read, post, watch, date, record, and go” across consumer populations, the FTC has recently re-focused its attention on mobile security issues. As the amount of information collected on mobile devices, and through applications on those devices, continues to rise exponentially, unsurprisingly, mobile devices have become increasingly fertile grounds for cyberattacks. Against this backdrop, in February 2018 the FTC issued a 134-page report titled Mobile Security Updates: Understanding the Issues (the “Report”). Not long afterward, on April 2, 2018, the FTC appointed a new Acting General Counsel, Alden Abbot, who has substantial experience in the mobile-communication industry, including serving in key legal roles at Blackberry Corporation and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in the Department of Commerce. Although the Report is narrowly focused on processes for patching vulnerabilities and software updates, the FTC notes that the Report is “part of an on-going dialogue” and that it intends to work with industry, consumer groups, and lawmakers to further the “goals of reasonable security and greater transparency” in its efforts to improve mobile-device security. READ MORE
This week, a high profile plaintiffs’ firm (Edelson) stated that “if done right,” the data breach class actions against Equifax should yield more than $1 billion in cash going directly to more than 143 million consumers (i.e., roughly $7 per person).
No defendant to date has paid anything close to $1 billion. In fact, the largest class settlements in breach cases hardly get close: Target Stores paid $10 million (cash reimbursement for actual losses) and The Home Depot paid $13 million (cash reimbursement for actual losses + credit monitoring). Will Equifax be different?
Part of the answer revolves around the increasingly debated role and importance of “consumer harm” in resolving data breach disputes. READ MORE
Last week, as part of its Fall Technology Series, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) hosted a much-anticipated workshop to explore the privacy concerns associated with drones. Although many in the audience hoped that this workshop would provide some insight into the FTC’s perspective and position on regulation of drones and privacy, the workshop left attendees with more questions than answers. We were there, and provide you with some of the key takeaways.
What should companies do when ransomware hits? The FBI says: (a) report it to law enforcement and (b) do not pay the ransom. Given the recent onslaught in ransomware attacks—such as a 2016 variant that compromised an estimated 100,000 computers a day—companies should consider how their incident response plans account for decision-making in response to ransomware, and include this scenario in their next (or an interim) tabletop simulation.
FBI Public Service Announcement
In a September 15 announcement, the FBI urged companies to come forward and report ransomware attacks to law enforcement. The FBI acknowledged that companies may hesitate to contact law enforcement for a variety of reasons: uncertainly as to whether a specific attack warrants law enforcement attention, fear of adverse reputational impact or even embarrassment, or a belief that reporting is unnecessary where a ransom has been paid or data back-ups have restored services.
Notwithstanding these dynamics, the FBI is calling on companies to help in the fight: “Victim reporting provides law enforcement with a greater understanding of the threat, provides justification for ransomware investigations, and contributes relevant information to ongoing ransomware cases.”
The FBI also offered some best practices that companies should consider incorporating into their cybersecurity program and/or their disaster recovery and business continuity plans. These recommendations include: regular backups that are verified, securing backups, implementation of anti-virus and anti-malware solutions, increased employee awareness training, institution of principle of least privilege policies, and more. READ MORE
Last week, fashion retailer Lord & Taylor reached a settlement with the FTC over its allegedly deceptive advertising campaign, the first such action since the FTC released its Enforcement Policy Statement on Deceptively Formatted Advertisements and its companion guidance, Native Advertising: A Guide for Businesses, in December 2015. Native Advertising is clearly on the FTC’s 2016 enforcement agenda.
In a much anticipated move, on March 2, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) entered the cybersecurity foray with its first enforcement action against Dwolla, Inc., an online payment processing start-up. Pursuant to its authority under Sections 1031(a) and 1036(a)(1) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, the CFPB fined Dwolla $100,000 and secured a five-year consent order imposing strict requirements on management and the Board of Directors. This CFPB enforcement action offers important insights into the contours of “reasonable cybersecurity” for certain financial services entities, and important lessons for conducting cybersecurity risk assessments. These issues dovetail with significant activity we recently reported on in the cybersecurity arena by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights (HHS-OCR), and a host of other state and federal regulators.
In just the last week, the New York State DMV announced an upgrade to facial recognition software to catch identity thieves trying to obtain fraudulent driver’s licenses, and the Scottish Professional Football League was denied a request for funding for facial recognition at stadiums to track unacceptable conduct. Use of technology and services that leverage biometrics – unique physical or behavioral characteristics about a person – is increasing, and privacy laws are hot on their trail with U.S. states starting to consider and enact laws restricting how companies can collect and use biometrics information, restricting how long the information can be retained, and specifying how it must be protected. This post tells you the high points you need to know about U.S. biometrics privacy laws, and what to do to avoid being the next lawsuit target. In a second, forthcoming post, we will focus on the current (and future) state of EU law, where there are already stringent restrictions on the collection, use and transfer or biometric information.
On 29 February 2016 the European Commission issued the legal texts of the EU-U.S Privacy Shield which aims to replace the defunct EU-U.S Safe Harbor Framework as a legitimate mechanism for transferring personal data from the EU to the U.S.
In contrast to its predecessor, the Privacy Shield contains commitments from US government in relation to controls on access to personal data by public authorities. This is an aspect of the new scheme which aims to address the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and criticisms of the previous Safe Harbor Framework.
On January 5, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) entered into a consent order with dental software manufacturer Henry Schein Practice Solutions, Inc. (“Schein”) in connection with allegations that Schein had made misleading security-related representations about its software. The consent order underscores that while security-enhanced product features are in high demand, companies must be careful to avoid unfair or deceptive marketing of such features.
Following the Third Circuit’s ruling upholding the FTC’s authority to regulate unfair and deceptive cybersecurity practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act, Wyndham Worldwide Corporation and the FTC have agreed to settle. This marks the end to a hotly-contested and closely-watched case at the cross-roads of data security and regulatory enforcement.
As reported in our previous posts on this topic, Wyndham experienced three breaches of its systems in 2008 and 2009 resulting in the exposure of approximately 619,000 consumers’ credit card numbers. The FTC initiated an enforcement action in 2012 alleging that Wyndham engaged in unfair and deceptive cybersecurity practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC asserted that Wyndham’s cybersecurity practices were deficient in myriad ways that placed consumer data at risk of theft, for example, by storing payment card information in clear text, using weak and default passwords across networks, failing to install or misconfiguring firewalls, failing to adequately restrict vendor access to corporate networks, and failing to follow appropriate incident response procedures after successive cyberattacks.