Cyber-Security: A Shared Responsibility -- November 2013


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Cyber-Security: A Shared Responsibility -- November 2013

  1. 1. Cyber-Security: A Shared Responsibility November 2013 Presented by: Amy C. Purcell, Esq. Scott L. Vernick, Esq. © 2013 Fox Rothschild
  2. 2. Topics For Discussion • What is a “data security breach”? • Why do you need a response plan? • Responding to a data security breach • State statutory requirements • Regulatory update • Regulatory enforcement actions and litigation 2
  3. 3. 2012 Statistics • In 2012, there were 621 confirmed data breaches and 47,000 reported security incidents. – 92% perpetrated by outsiders – 76% caused by exploiting weak or stolen passwords Source: 2013 Data Breach Investigations Report, Verizon. 3
  4. 4. 2012 Statistics • The FTC instituted 109 consumer protection enforcement actions. – Up from 83 enforcement actions in 2011 • The FTC ordered civil penalties totaling $63.6 million. – Up from $9.75 million in 2011 • Identity theft represents the largest category of consumer complaint received by the FTC (approximately 18%). Source: Federal Trade Commission’s 2013 Annual Highlights. 4
  5. 5. Cost Of A Data Security Breach • In 2012, data breaches cost organizations an average of $5.4 million. – $188 per record – Includes direct costs (communications, investigations, legal) and indirect costs (lost business, public relations) – Compare to costs of having preventative measures in place (e.g., policies related to passwords, firewalls, mobile devices), training employees and encrypting sensitive information Source: 2013 Cost of Data Breach Study: United States, Ponemon Institute. 5
  6. 6. Cost Of A Data Security Breach • Data breaches resulting from a malicious attack yielded the highest cost. – $277 per record • Organizations that had a formal incident response plan in place prior to the incident reduced the cost by approximately $42 per record. Source: 2013 Cost of Data Breach Study: United States, Ponemon Institute. 6
  7. 7. 2012 Statistics • Based upon a survey of more than 500 U.S. executives, security experts and others from the public and private sector: – 38% of organizations do not have a methodology that helps determine the effectiveness of their security programs – 52% of organizations do not conduct incident response planning with their third-party supply chain – 35% of organizations do not evaluate the security of third-parties with which they share data or network access Source: Key Findings from the 2013 U.S. State of Cybercrime Survey, PricewaterhouseCoopers 7
  8. 8. 2012 Statistics – 12% of organizations do not have a formalized plan for responding to a data security event; 17% do not have a plan, but intend to have one in the next 12 months and 19% do not know whether there is a plan in place – 33% of organizations do not have a formalized plan for responding to an insider data security event – 25% of respondents stated that their organization is “minimally” effective in managing and intervening in threats by employees Source: Key Findings from the 2013 U.S. State of Cybercrime Survey, PricewaterhouseCoopers. 8
  9. 9. Types of Data Security Breaches • Hacking • Devices are lost or stolen • Insider or employee misuse • Unintended disclosure • Security patches are not installed • Malware 9
  10. 10. What Is The Objective? Fill In The Gap • Protection • Compliance • Audits How to Manage the Data Security Breach • Criminal prosecution • Civil liability 10
  11. 11. Why Do You Need A Response Plan? Thoughtful and Prepared Reaction Better Decision Making Minimized Risk and Loss 11
  12. 12. Collect Relevant Information • Data location lists • Confidentiality agreements • Customer contracts • Third-party vendor contracts • Information security policy • Ethics policy • Litigation hold template • Contact list • Privacy policy 12
  13. 13. Create A First Response Team • Information technology (computer & technology resources) • Information security (physical security & access) • Human resources (private employee information health & medical, payroll, tax, retirement) 13
  14. 14. Create A First Response Team (cont’d) • Legal counsel (in-house and/or outside counsel) • Compliance • Business heads (consumer information) • Public relations/investor relations 14
  15. 15. Assign Tasks To Members Of The First Response Team • • • • • • Establish a point person Identify key personnel for each task Prioritize and assign tasks Calculate timelines and set deadlines Communicate with management Establish attorney-client privilege for investigation and communications Project Management Is Critical 15
  16. 16. Determine The Nature And Scope Of The Breach • • • • Investigate facts Interview witnesses Notify law enforcement, FBI, USSS Determine type of information that may have been compromised; ongoing threat • Identify and assess potential kinds of liability • Identify individuals potentially at risk and determine state or country of residence Preserve Company’s Assets, Reputation and Integrity 16
  17. 17. Understand Data Breach Notice Laws • State laws: – – – – – – – What constitutes personal information? When is a notice required? Who must be notified? (e.g.,State Attorney General) Timing? What information must be included in the notice? Method of delivering notice? Other state specific requirements? • Applicable industry-specific laws • Applicable international laws 17
  18. 18. Determine Appropriate Notices • Consumers • Employees • Law enforcement (Federal/State) • Federal regulatory agencies • State agencies (State Attorney General) • Consumer reporting agencies • Business partners • Insurers • Media 18
  19. 19. Data Security Breach Notification • Alabama, Kentucky, New Mexico and South Dakota are the only states that do not have a data security breach notification statute. • California statute served as a model for later state statutes. – State involvement began in California, after series of breaches received national attention – Passed in 2002, went into effect in mid-2003 19
  20. 20. Data Security Breach Notification • “Any person or business that conducts business in California, and that owns or licenses computerized data that includes personal information, shall disclose any breach of security of the system following discovery or notification of the breach in the security of the data to any resident of California whose unencrypted personal information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person.” See Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.29. 20
  21. 21. Data Security Breach Notification • “Personal information” – First name or initial and last name with one or more of the following (when either name or data element is not encrypted): • Social security number; • Driver’s license number; • Credit card or debit card number; or • Financial account number with information such as PINs, passwords or authorization codes. 21
  22. 22. Data Security Breach Notification • Some states have expanded the definition of “personal information” to include: • California: Medical information or health insurance information; • Indiana: Biometric data; • North Dakota: Mother’s maiden name, birth/death/marriage certificate and electronic signature. 22
  23. 23. Data Security Breach Notification • On September 27, 2013, California’s governor signed S.B. 46 to expand the definition of “personal information” to include: – “a username or email address, in combination with a password or security question and answer that would permit access to an online account.” – S.B. 46 is effective January 1, 2014. 23
  24. 24. Data Security Breach Notification • “Breach of the security of the system” – Some states expressly require notice of unauthorized access to non-computerized data • New York: “lost or stolen computer or other device containing information” or “information has been downloaded or copied” • Hawaii and North Carolina: data includes “personal information in any form (whether computerized, paper, or otherwise)” 24
  25. 25. Data Security Breach Notification • Generally, only need “reasonable” belief the information has been acquired by unauthorized person to trigger notification requirements. – Certain states require risk or harm • Arkansas: no notice if “no reasonable likelihood of harm to customers” • Michigan: no notice if “not likely to cause substantial loss or injury to, or result in identity theft” 25
  26. 26. Data Security Breach Notification • Distinguish between entity that “owns or licenses” data and entity that “maintains” data – Data owner has ultimate responsibility to notify consumers of a breach – Non-owners required to notify owners 26
  27. 27. Prepare State Law Notices • General description of the incident • Type of information that may have been compromised • Steps to protect information from further unauthorized access • Contact information (e.g., email address; 1-800 number) • Advice to affected individuals (e.g., credit reporting, review account activity) 27
  28. 28. Prepare State Law Notices • Delivery method (e.g., certified letters, email, website) • Timing of notices • Tailor notices based on recipient • Use single fact description for all notices 28
  29. 29. Prepare Answers To Inquiries • Draft FAQ’s with responses • Establish hotline • Assign group of contact employees • Train employees to respond to inquiries • Develop clear escalation path for difficult questions • Track questions and answers 29
  30. 30. Prepare Press Release • Include the following information: – Facts surrounding the incident – Actions to prevent further unauthorized access – Steps to prevent future data security breaches – Contact information for questions • Review by legal counsel 30
  31. 31. Consider Offering Assistance To Affected Individuals • Free credit reporting • Free credit monitoring with alerts • ID theft insurance • Access to fraud resolution specialists • Toll-free hotline 31
  32. 32. Regulatory Update The FTC And Mobile Applications • In February 2013, the FTC issued a Staff Report titled “Mobile Privacy Disclosures: Building Trust Through Transparency.” • The Staff Report recommends ways that key players in the mobile marketplace can better inform consumers about their data practices. 32
  33. 33. Regulatory Update The FTC And Mobile Applications • The recommendations ensure that consumers get timely and easy-to-understand disclosures about what data they collect and how the data is used. • The Staff Report makes specific recommendations to: – – – – Mobile platform developers; Application developers; Advertising networks and analytics companies; and Application developer trade associations. 33
  34. 34. Regulatory Update California’s Right To Know Act • Assembly Bill 1291 • Would require businesses that collect consumer information to provide customers with the names and addresses of all data brokers, advertisers and others who were granted access to the information, as well as details regarding the data that was disclosed. • Businesses would have 30 days to answer a request for the information. 34
  35. 35. Regulatory Update California’s Right To Know Act • Applies to businesses who “retain” personal data or disclose the information to a third party. • Defines “retain” to mean “store or otherwise hold personal information” whether the information is collected or obtained directly from the consumer or any third party. 35
  36. 36. Regulatory Update California’s Right To Know Act • Faced opposition by companies such as Google and Facebook. • Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal delayed action on the bill by turning it into a two-year bill. • Lowenthal plans to spend the remainder of the year educating her colleagues about the importance of the proposed legislation. • Assembly will consider AB 1291 again in 2014. 36
  37. 37. Regulatory Update California And Mobile Applications • In 2012, the California Attorney General entered into an agreement with 6 companies whose platforms comprise the majority of the mobile apps market (i.e., Amazon, Apple, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft and RIM). • The agreement is designed to ensure that mobile apps comply with the California Online Privacy Protection Action (CalOPPA). 37
  38. 38. Regulatory Update California And Mobile Applications • CalOPPA requires operators of commercial websites and online services, including mobile apps, who collect personal information about California residents to conspicuously post a privacy policy. • In October 2012, the California Attorney General issued 100 enforcement letters to companies like Delta Airlines who operate mobile apps. • In December 2012, the California Attorney General filed its first mobile app enforcement lawsuit against Delta based upon alleged lack of privacy disclosures in its app. 38
  39. 39. Regulatory Update California And Mobile Applications • On January 10, 2013, the California Attorney General issued a report titled “Privacy On the Go: Recommendations for the Mobile Ecosystem.” • The Report announced suggested changes in how companies address consumer privacy in their mobile applications. 39
  40. 40. Regulatory Update California And Mobile Applications • Examples of the recommendations in the California Attorney General’s Report: – Personal information is not limited to name and email address. – Maintain list of what information an app will collect, as well as how it will be used and stored. – Only collect personal information necessary to an app’s functionality. – Privacy policies must be “readable.” – Companies should not rely upon their general privacy policy. 40
  41. 41. Regulatory Update California’s Data Breach Report • On July 1, 2013, the California Attorney General released a report that provides a summary of the types of breaches reported to her office during 2012, as well as recommendations about how to decrease the likelihood of experiencing a data breach. 41
  42. 42. Regulatory Update California’s Data Breach Report • Key Findings: – 131 data breaches affecting more than 500 California residents. – Average incident involved information relating to 22,500 individuals. – More than 2.5 million California residents at risk because of data breaches in 2012. – More than 1.4 million of those California residents would not be at risk, if the data had been encrypted. – More than half of the breaches were the result of intentional intrusions by outsiders or by unauthorized insiders. – The average reading level of the breach notices submitted was 14th grade. 42
  43. 43. Regulatory Update California’s Data Breach Report • Recommendations: – Encrypt personal information when in transit, on portable devices or in emails. – Review and strengthen security controls used to protect personal information. – Prepare breach notification letters in an easyto-understand format. 43
  44. 44. Regulatory Update California’s Data Breach Report • Recommendations (cont’d): – Offer mitigation products to victims of breaches that involve social security numbers or driver’s license numbers. – Consider amending breach notification laws to require reporting of breaches that involve usernames and passwords. 44
  45. 45. Regulatory Update California’s PII Initiative • Initiative seeks to amend the California Constitution: – Creates presumption that individual’s PII, including financial or health information, is confidential when collected for a commercial or governmental purpose. – Requires collector of PII to use all reasonably available means to protect it from unauthorized disclosure. – Creates presumption of harm when PII is disclosed without authorization, unless information is publicly available or there is a countervailing compelling interest. 45
  46. 46. Regulatory Update California’s PII Initiative • On September 26, 2013, signature collection efforts began. • In order to quality for the November 2014 ballot, proponents of the initiative must collect signatures of 807,615 registered voters by February 24, 2014. • If voters approve the initiative, it would take effect in January 2016. 46
  47. 47. Enforcement Actions • Federal Trade Commission – Section 5 of FTC Act – Enforce privacy policies and challenge data security practices deemed “deceptive” or “unfair.” • State Attorney General – State Notification Statutes – Connecticut: “Failure to comply . . . shall constitute an unfair trade practice . . .” – Virginia: “The Attorney General may bring an action to address violations.” Moreover, “nothing in this section shall limit an individual from recovering direct economic damages.” • Litigation in federal and state courts. 47
  48. 48. Federal Trade Commission • In June 2012, the FTC instituted litigation in federal court against Wyndham Worldwide Corporation. • In its complaint, the FTC alleges that, beginning in April 2008 and through January 2010, cybercriminals hacked into Wyndham’s computer network and the networks of certain Wyndham hotels, exposing credit card information of hotel guests. 48
  49. 49. Federal Trade Commission • The FTC alleges that hackers compromised administrator accounts and installed memoryscraping malware to access credit card information. • The FTC contends that hackers compromised more than 619,000 credit card account numbers and that the incidents caused more than $10.6 million in fraud losses. 49
  50. 50. Federal Trade Commission • Under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits “unfair and deceptive acts or practices,” the FTC alleges that: – Wyndham’s data security protections amounted to “unfair” trade practices because they were not “reasonable and appropriate”; and – Wyndham “deceived” consumers by stating on its website that it used “commercially reasonable efforts” to secure credit card information that it collects from consumers. 50
  51. 51. Federal Trade Commission • In an unprecedented move, Wyndham refused to settle this dispute and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. – Wyndham argues that the FTC is overreaching its authority because “Section 5’s prohibition on ‘unfair’ trade practices does not give the FTC authority to prescribe data-security standards for all private businesses.” – Wyndham argues that, because Congress has not yet passed data security legislation, the FTC has the authority to regulate data security in limited contexts (e.g., GrammLeach-Bliley Act). 51
  52. 52. Federal Trade Commission – Wyndham further argues that Section 5 of the FTC Act “provides no meaningful notice to regulated parties” because it does not contain any guidance about what practices might be deemed “unfair” or “deceptive.” Similarly, the FTC has not published any rules or regulations “explaining what data security practices a company must adopt to be in compliance with the statute.” – As such, “businesses are left to guess as to what they must do to comply with the law.” – This case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Civil Action No. 13-01887). 52
  53. 53. Federal Trade Commission • This is the first litigated case challenging the FTC’s authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act related to data security. • Generally, FTC enforcement actions result in a settlement. – FTC provides a defendant with a proposed draft complaint. – FTC “negotiates” the terms of a consent order. 53
  54. 54. Federal Trade Commission Recent Enforcement Actions • In the Matter of LabMD Inc., No. 102 9357 – Billing department manager installed LimeWire on his computer, which exposed a report containing personal information of 9,300 consumers. – FTC alleges that LabMD failed to reasonably protect consumers’ personal information and issued civil investigative demands (CIDs). – LabMD refused to respond to CIDs. 54
  55. 55. Federal Trade Commission Recent Enforcement Actions • In the Matter of LabMD Inc., No. 102 9357 – FTC filed a petition to enforce CIDs. – LabMD answered the petition stating that the FTC lacks statutory authority to tell companies how to secure their data. – The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action No. 12-3005). 55
  56. 56. Federal Trade Commission Recent Enforcement Actions • In the Matter of TrendNet, No. 122 3090 – TrendNet sells Internet-connected video cameras. – FTC alleges that TrendNet’s improper security measures allowed hackers to webcast live feeds from hundreds of its customers’ homes. – TrendNet agreed to settle this action by entering into a consent order with the FTC. 56
  57. 57. State Attorney General • In May 2013, the Connecticut and Maryland Attorneys General questioned LivingSocial Inc. about the specifics of a recent data breach that exposed the personal information of approximately 50 million users. • The Connecticut and Maryland Attorneys General issued to LivingSocial 15 written questions regarding the scope of the breach, as well as its privacy and security policies. 57
  58. 58. State Attorney General • Examples of questions posed by Attorneys General include: – – – – – – – – Detailed timeline of the incident Number of affected individuals in each state Types of personal information compromised Steps taken to determine that no financial or credit card information was compromised Steps taken to protect user passwords How the company collects user data and how long it retains such data Copies of any privacy policies Plans developed to prevent another breach 58
  59. 59. State Attorney General • Both Connecticut and Maryland have statutes that require a company to report a data security breach to the Attorney General, as well as to individual consumers. • Questions posed by these Attorneys General provide guidance on issues companies should consider in responding to a data security breach. 59
  60. 60. State Attorney General Recent Action • State of Connecticut v. Citibank, N.A.: – Citibank’s Account Online Web-based service permitted hackers to access multiple user accounts. – Hackers accessed accounts by logging in with account number and password, and then changing a few characters in the URL bar to access additional accounts. – Exposed personal information of 360,000 Citibank customers, including 5,066 Connecticut residents. 60
  61. 61. State Attorney General Recent Action • State of Connecticut v. Citibank, N.A.: – Vulnerability may have existed since 2008. – Citibank discovered breach on May 10, 2011. – Fixed vulnerability on May 27, 2011, but did not begin notifying consumers until June 3, 2011. – Citibank settled action and agreed to: • Pay $55,000 fine. • Obtain a third-party data security audit of its online credit card account system. 61
  62. 62. Litigation Typical Claims By Plaintiffs • Plaintiffs (consumers or employees) typically allege the following causes of action: – Common law claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant or breach of fiduciary duty. – Claims for violations of state consumer protection statutes – deceptive/unfair trade practices acts. • Historically, courts have dismissed these cases based upon lack of standing. 62
  63. 63. Litigation Plaintiffs Lack Standing • In re LinkedIn User Privacy Litig. (N.D. Cal. 2012): – Plaintiffs filed complaint against LinkedIn in connection with a data breach incident in which approximately 6.5 million users’ passwords and email addresses were stolen and posted on the Internet. – Plaintiff argued that they had standing to sue because they suffered economic harm by not receiving the full benefit of the bargain they paid for premium memberships. – The Court granted LinkedIn’s motion to dismiss the complaint. 63
  64. 64. Litigation Plaintiffs Lack Standing • In re LinkedIn User Privacy Litig. (N.D. Cal. 2012): – The Court held that, “[t]o satisfy Article III standing, plaintiff must allege: • (1) an injury-in-fact that is concrete and particularized, as well as actual and imminent; • (2) that injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and • (3) that it is likely (not merely speculative) that injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” 64
  65. 65. Litigation Plaintiffs Lack Standing • In re LinkedIn User Privacy Litig. (N.D. Cal. 2012): – Plaintiffs failed to allege that “included in Plaintiffs’ bargain for premium membership was the promise of a particular (or greater) level of scrutiny that was not part of the free membership.” – Plaintiffs did not allege that they relied upon (or even read) LinkedIn’s representations regarding safeguarding personal information. – Plaintiffs’ allegation that their LinkedIn passwords were “publicly posted on the Internet” does not amount to a “legally cognizable injury, such as, for example, identity theft or theft of her personally identifiable information.” 65
  66. 66. Litigation Plaintiffs Lack Standing • In re Barnes & Noble Pin Pad Litigation (N.D. Ill. 2013): – Skimmers on PIN pad devices at 63 locations in 9 states. – Plaintiffs argued a wide variety of claims: • Increased risk of identity theft; • Untimely and inadequate notification; • Improper disclosure of PII; • Invasion of privacy; • Increased risk of identity theft; • Decreased value of PII; • Anxiety and emotional distress; and • Overpayment for products. 66
  67. 67. Litigation Plaintiffs Lack Standing • In re Barnes & Noble Pin Pad Litigation (N.D. Ill. 2013): – Relying on the United States Supreme Court decision in Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA Inc., No. 11-1025 (2013), the Court granted Barnes & Noble’s motion to dismiss. • Clapper: Held that private citizens lacked standing to challenge 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act because they could not show the government had actually spied on them. 67
  68. 68. Litigation Plaintiffs Lack Standing • In re Barnes & Noble Pin Pad Litigation (N.D. Ill. 2013): – Failed to prove “injury in fact” that is “certainly impending.” • Speculation of future harm does not constitute actual injury. • Even if plaintiffs could prove statutory violations, such violations would be insufficient to establish standing without actual injury. • Increased identity theft expenses cannot establish standing for non-imminent harm. • Emotional distress insufficient absent any imminent threat to PII. • Fraudulent charges were reimbursed. 68
  69. 69. Litigation Plaintiffs Have Standing • Ruiz v. Gap, Inc., 622 F. Supp. 2d 908 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (increased risk of identity theft constituted sufficient “injury in fact” for purposes of standing). • Krottner v. Starbucks Corp., 628 F. 3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2010) (“a credible threat of real and immediate harm stemming from theft of a laptop containing unencrypted personal information” sufficient to demonstrate standing). 69
  70. 70. Litigation Plaintiffs Have Standing • Harris v. comScore (N.D. Ill. 2013): – Plaintiffs alleged that defendants improperly obtained and used personal information after consumers downloaded and installed company’s software. – comScore’s data collection violated the User License Agreement and the Downloading Statement. – Court found standing based upon statutory damages available under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act. 70
  71. 71. Litigation Plaintiffs Have Standing • Courts in the Ninth Circuit have also found standing based upon statutory damages: – Gaos v. Google (N.D. Cal. 2012)(“the SCA provides a right to judicial relief based only on a violation of the statute without additional injury”). – Cousineau v. Microsoft (W.D. Wash. 2012) (denying motion to dismiss for lack of standing where plaintiff alleged an SCA violation). – In re Facebook Privacy Litig. (N.D. Cal. 2011) (plaintiffs established standing when they alleged a violation of the ECPA). 71
  72. 72. Litigation Plaintiffs Cannot Allege Damages th • Krottner v. Starbucks Corp., 628 F. 3d 1139 (9 Cir. 2010). – “[O]ur holding that Plaintiffs-Appellants pled an injury-infact for purposes of Article III standing does not establish that they adequately pled damages for purposes of their state-law claims.” – “[A]ctual loss or damage is an essential element in the formulation of the traditional elements necessary for a cause of action in negligence.” – Court dismissed case because Plaintiffs alleged “no loss.” 72
  73. 73. Litigation Plaintiffs Cannot Allege Damages • In re: Sony Gaming Networks and Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2258 (S.D. Cal. 2011): – Hackers accessed the personal information of millions of Sony’s customers. – Plaintiffs did not allege any identity theft or unauthorized use of personal information “causing a pecuniary loss.” – The Court granted Sony’s motion to dismiss and found that, “without specific factual statements that Plaintiffs’ Personal Information has been misused, in the form of an open bank account, or un-reimbursed charges, the mere danger of future harm unaccompanied by present damage, will not support a negligence action.” 73
  74. 74. Litigation Plaintiffs Cannot Allege Damages • Holmes v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. 08-0205, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96587 (W.D. Ky. 2012) (Court dismissed case where “scant evidence exists demonstrating that [the theives] misused the customers’ information or engaged in any kind of financial fraud”). • Worix v. MedAssets, Inc., 857 F. Supp. 2d 699 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (Court dismissed negligence claim because Plaintiff did not allege that his personal information was “misused”). 74
  75. 75. Litigation Plaintiffs Allege Damages • Anderson v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 659 F.3d 151 (1st Cir. 2011): – Hackers stole 4.2 million credit and debit card numbers, and security codes. – Defendant acknowledged that more than 1,800 incidents of identity theft resulted from the breach. – Many victims had to pay to cancel their cards or purchase credit monitoring services. Others incurred unauthorized charges. – Court denied motion to dismiss. 75
  76. 76. Litigation Plaintiffs Allege Damages • Resnick v. AvMed, Inc., 693 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2012): – Thieves stole 2 laptops containing names, addresses, phone numbers and social security numbers of 1.2 million AvMed customers. – Ten months after the incident, a bank account was opened and credit card issued in the name of one of the AvMed customers. – Four months later, an E*Trade account was opened in the name of another AvMed customer. – Unauthorized purchases were made from both accounts. – Court denied motion to dismiss because Plaintiffs alleged “financial injury.” 76
  77. 77. Avoid Future Data Security Breaches • Understand what types of personal information is collected, how, where and how long it is stored, and who has access to it. • Collect only personal information necessary to conduct business. • Retain personal information for shortest time necessary to conduct business. • Limit access to personal information. • Encrypt data. 77
  78. 78. Avoid Future Data Security Breaches • Establish internal policies to protect personal information. – e.g., robust passwords, usage policies for laptops and mobile phones, secure disposal policies. • Comply with promises made to consumers or employees regarding privacy and security of personal information. – Disclosures about collection, maintenance, use and dissemination of personal information must be accurate and complete. 78
  79. 79. Avoid Future Data Security Breaches • Train employees. • Conduct periodic audits. • Update and revise policies and procedures regularly. • Enhance technology to strengthen security and reduce risk. – e.g., strong firewalls, scans for vulnerabilities, up-to-date anti-virus software. • Use care when engaging third-party vendors and hold them to high standards. 79
  80. 80. Amy C. Purcell 215.299.2798 Scott L. Vernick 215.299.2860 80