California May Lower the Standing Threshold in Data Breach Litigation

By Joseph J. Lazzarotti, Jason C. Gavejian and Maya Atrakchi on

A key issue for any business facing class action litigation in response to a data breach is whether the plaintiffs, particularly consumers, will have standing to sue. Standing to sue in a data breach class action suit, largely turns on whether plaintiffs establish that they have suffered an “injury-in-fact” resulting from the data breach. Plaintiffs in data breach class actions are often not able to demonstrate that they have suffered financial or other actual damages resulting from a breach of their personal information. Instead, plaintiffs will allege that a heightened “risk of future harm” such as identity theft or fraudulent charges is enough to establish an “injury-in-fact”.

Federal circuits court over the past few years have struggled with the question whether plaintiffs in a data breach class action can establish standing if they only allege a heightened “risk of future harm”.  For example, the 3rd, 6th, 7th, 10th and 11th circuits have generally found standing, while the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th circuits have generally found no standing where a plaintiff only alleges a heightened “risk of future harm”. This circuit court split is in large part to due to lack of clarity following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins which held that even if a statute has been violated, plaintiffs must demonstrate that an “injury-in-fact” has occurred that is both concrete and particularized, but which failed to clarify whether a “risk of future harm” qualifies as such an injury.

California Senate Tackles Issue of Standing in Data Breach Class Action Suits

While businesses await the U.S. Supreme Court to address this issue, it looks like the California legislature may take matters into its own hands. Senator Bill Dodd (D.) recently introduced a bill, S.B. 1121 Personal Information (an amendment to the California Customer Records Act) that would allow consumers to sue a business in response to a data breach without any showing of harm at all. The California Senate recently passed the bill in a vote of 22-13, after accepting an amendment from the Assembly to create a safe harbor for businesses that protect consumer’s personal data. The bill now moves to the California Assembly that must vote on the bill by August 31st. If the bill passes the Assembly, Governor Jerry Brown will have 30 days to sign or veto the bill.

Key Aspects of the S.B. 1121 Personal Information Include:

  • Each consumer could recover damages in an amount of not less than $200 and not greater than $1,000 per incident or for actual damages, whichever sum is greater.
  • Defines “breach” as “unauthorized access, use, modification, or disclosure of personal information.”
  • Consumers would have up to 4 years to sue for violation of the California Customer Records Act if their personal information was breached.
  • The current California Customer Records narrowly defines “customer” as an individual who provides personal information to a business for the purpose of purchasing or leasing a product or obtaining a service from the business. This bill would instead make those provisions applicable to consumers and consumer records, and define “consumer” for purposes of those provisions broadly to include any natural person.
  • A safe harbor for businesses that have implemented and maintained reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information.

Response to Senator Dodd’s Bill

 S.B. 1121 Personal Information if passed would substantially lower (if not eliminate) the standing threshold in data breach consumer class action lawsuits. While consumer groups including the Consumer Attorneys of California, the California Public Interest Research Group, and others have come out in support, business organizations are, strongly opposed to the bill. Opposition includes a coalition of over 70 groups (and growing) including the

Senator Dodd in his introduction of S.B. 1121 stressed the importance of providing consumers a measure to sue following a data breach of their personal information, however Senator Dodd has said he is open to amendments of the bill to prevent “a mecca for lawsuits when no harm has been done”.

Takeaway

S.B. 1121 Personal Information is only one example of a wider trend in both the state and federal legislatures attempting to provide greater protection to consumer’s personal information, in response to both large-scale breaches, and the E.U.’s General Data Protection Regulation. Recent amendments strengthening state data breach notification laws (e.g. Louisiana, Colorado, Arizona, South Dakota and Alabama) and federal legislative proposals such as the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2017 or the Data Security and Breach Notification Act (see our blog post Senate Bill Introduced to Protect Personally Identifiable Information) are further indications of this growing trend.

You’re Gonna Need a Warrant for That….

By Rosemary McKenna on

On June 22, 2018, in Carpenter v. United States, the United States Supreme Court decided that the federal government would need a warrant in order to obtain historical location data from cellular service providers, based on cell tower “pings.” (“Pings” are more formally referred to as cell-site location information or “CLSI.”) As explained in more detail below, the issue at the center of the controversy in the Carpenter case was whether an individual’s personal location (as reflected in the CLSI) was private information protected by the Fourth Amendment, or whether any expectation of privacy was revoked because the location information was shared with the cell service provider when the individual’s cell phone accessed different cell towers. This decision was by a divided court (5-4), with four separate dissenting opinions (in other words, the Court had a lot to say on this).

A bit of background on the laws that were relevant to the Court in the Carpenter case (because the Magic 8 Ball is predicting that as technology continues to be a critical aspect of our personal and business lives, there will continue to be legal activity on the issue of what is private vs. what is shared). The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides protections to the people of the United States to “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” and that “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) is one of the titles included in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”). The ECPA (including the SCA) was codified in 1986. At that point in time, most people didn’t own cell phones, and if they did, they didn’t turn them on. (I only carried mine as a potential means of defense, as it was substantial enough to knock out a potential attacker (without the screen breaking).)   As the Carpenter decision notes, however, “[t]here are 396 million cell phone service accounts in the United States – for a Nation of 326 million people.” While the SCA has been amended since 1986, it is difficult for statutory and case law to keep up with the lightning speed of technology.

The SCA makes it unlawful to access or disclose stored electronic communications records, unless the government compels such disclosure as allowed by the statute. Some of the ways the government may compel disclosure include through an issued warrant, an authorized administrative subpoena or a court order that shows “specific and articulable facts” that show the information may be relevant to a criminal investigation. See, 8 USC §2703.

Now on to the facts….the Carpenter case involved a criminal investigation by the FBI into a series of robberies in Detroit, Michigan. Federal judges issued court orders requiring two national cell phone providers to provide CLSI for incoming and outgoing calls, both for the time the call started, and the time the call ended. This CLSI placed Mr. Carpenter near four of the robberies, and he was charged and convicted.

The use of the CLSI in criminal investigations is where you see many of the cases on this type of issue; however, the rights of the government to obtain these records – or other use of the records — could have other implications. For example, this information can be used for other helpful purposes, such as to locate missing children or abducted individuals, or to track and locate terrorism suspects. It has also been used for purposes of tracking the location of individuals in state income tax audits, in order to determine if statutory residency tests have been met (which can impact businesses due to the potential negative impact on C-level employees who reside in a state other than where their principal office is located).

The Supreme Court found that the CLSI information was “intimate” data, which does more than simply show movements, but also shows “’familial, political, professional, religious and sexual associations.’” Moreover, this type of data is more personal than GPS attached to a car, as it travels with the individual and therefore accompanies an individual to the residence, physician’s office, and other “potentially revealing locations.” And, because it is stored for years, it provides a chronicled history of an individual’s actions (unlike a public viewing of someone, which is a one-time event). The Court found this to be significant because courts should consider what kind of information is sought in making a determination whether or not an individual would legitimately expect the information to be private.

This ruling, however, was expressly stated to have narrow application. The Court advised that it did not apply to other types of business records that may “incidentally” include location information, and may not even apply to protect all CLSI. The opinion of the Court noted “[t]he Government will be able to use subpoenas to acquire records in the overwhelming majority of investigations. We hold only that a warrant is required in the rare case where the suspect has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party.”

So, at this point, it seems clear that the FBI cannot access historical, chronicled, CLSI records such as those obtained for Mr. Carpenter, in a criminal investigation, without a warrant. But for all of the other potential uses of this type of data? That Magic 8 Ball is stuck on “Reply Hazy, Try Again.”

Fourth Circuit Weighs in on Standing in Data Breach Litigation

By Joseph J. Lazzarotti, Jason C. Gavejian and Maya Atrakchi on

Cybersecurity incidents are on the rise, and so too is data breach litigation brought by plaintiffs who allege they were harmed by the unauthorized exposure of their personal information. Federal circuits across the United States are grappling with the issue of what satisfies the Article III standing requirement in data breach litigation, when often only a “risk of future harm” exists.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (“the Fourth Circuit”) is the latest circuit court to weigh in on standing in data breach litigation. In Hutton v. National Board of Examiners in Optometry, the court held that the plaintiffs satisfied the Article III standing requirement by alleging hackers stole and misused their personally identifiable information (PII), even though no financial loss was incurred. Circuit courts have been split on the issue of standing in the data breach context, with some courts finding standing where only a heightened “risk of future harm” exists, i.e. the likelihood that stolen data may be misused (Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits), while other circuit courts require actual harm such as financial loss (Second, Third, and Eighth Circuits). The Fourth Circuit in Hutton has reached a middle ground finding that actual theft and misuse of the PII satisfied the standing threshold, even though no pecuniary damages resulted.

In Hutton, the plaintiffs, members of the National Board of Examiners in Optometry (NBEO), noticed that credit card accounts were fraudulently opened in their names, which required knowledge of their social security numbers and dates of birth. Although the NBEO never admitted to a security breach, plaintiffs concluded that the NBEO was the only common source to which they had provided their personal information. As a result, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging the NBEO failed to adequately safeguard their personal information.

The NBEO filed a motion to dismiss arguing that although fraudulent credit card accounts were opened, no actual harm had occurred, and thus the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to sue. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted the NBEO’s motion, finding, inter alia, that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege they had suffered an “injury-in-fact” because they had incurred no fraudulent charges and had not been denied credit or required to pay a higher credit rate as a result of the fraudulent credit card accounts.

The Fourth Circuit, however, reversed the district court’s holding, concluding that credit card fraud and identity theft alone were sufficient to establish Article III standing. The court distinguished Hutton, from their ruling in Beck v. McDonald, in which the court concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they only alleged a “threat of future injury” – laptops and boxes were stolen containing personal information, but that information was not misused. In Hutton, the court emphasized, unlike in Beck, plaintiffs were “concretely injured” as credit card accounts were open without their knowledge or approval, qualifying as misuse, even if fraudulent charges were yet to occur.

The circuit court split on the issue of Article III standing has made it difficult for businesses to assess the likelihood of litigation and its associated costs in the wake of a data breach. Until the Supreme Court weighs in on this issue, it is crucial for businesses to assess their breach readiness and develop an incident or breach response plan that takes into consideration the possibility of litigation.

California Governor Signs Into Law Groundbreaking Consumer Protection Law

By Joseph J. Lazzarotti, Jason C. Gavejian and Maya Atrakchi on

As we reported earlier this week, California legislature Democrats reached a tentative agreement with a group of consumer privacy activists spearheading a ballot initiative for heightened consumer privacy protections, in which the activists would withdraw the existing ballot initiative in exchange for the California legislature passing, and Governor Jerry Brown signing into law, a similar piece of legislation, with some concessions, by June 28th, the final deadline to withdraw ballot initiatives.

And as agreed upon, yesterday, hours before the deadline to withdraw ballot initiatives, the California legislature passed, and Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the groundbreaking California Consumer Protection Act of 2018 (AB 375).

Consumer Privacy activists were pleased with the swift passage of the new law, “This is a milestone moment for privacy law in the United States,” Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center said in a statement. “The California Privacy Act sends a powerful message that people care about privacy and that lawmakers will act.”

Opponents, including the Internet Association, a lobbying group representing major technology companies, were less than pleased, “It is critical going forward that policymakers work to correct the inevitable, negative policy and compliance ramifications this last-minute deal will create for California’s consumers and businesses alike,” the group said in a statement.

A comprehensive update detailing key aspects of the new California law is available here.

 

Virginia Updates its Data Breach Notification Law to Include Tax Preparers

By Joseph J. Lazzarotti, Jason C. Gavejian and Maya Atrakchi on

For the second consecutive year Virginia has amended its data breach notification law. In March 2017, in light of a warning issued by the IRS to all employers regarding the resurgence of a W-2 based cyber scam, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe approved, a first of its kind, amendment to Virginia’s data breach notification statute. The amendment required employers and payroll service providers to notify the Virginia Office of the Attorney General of “unauthorized access and acquisition of unencrypted computerized data containing a taxpayer identification number in combination with the income tax withheld for an individual”. Now, Virginia has again amended its data breach notification law. This amendment requires any income tax return preparer who has primary responsibility for accuracy of the preparation of a return or claim for refund (“signing income tax return preparer”) and who prepares Virginia individual income tax returns during a calendar year to notify Virginia’s Department of Taxation, without unreasonable delay, if they discover or are notified of a breach of “return information”. The new amendment, HB 183, will come into effect July 1, 2018.

Under the new amendment, “return information” is defined as “a taxpayer’s identity and the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, assessments, or tax payments.”

A signing income tax preparer required to notify the Department of Taxation of a breach must include:

  • names of affected taxpayers;
  • taxpayer identification numbers of affected taxpayers;
  • the name of the signed income tax preparer;
  • the tax preparer’s tax identification number; and
  • such other information as the Department of Taxation may prescribe.

Virginia continues a growing trend of states that have enacted or strengthened their data breach notification laws, of late. For more information on data breach notification law developments, see our recent articles:

 

California May Be Headed Towards Sweeping Consumer Privacy Protections

By Joseph J. Lazzarotti, Jason C. Gavejian and Maya Atrakchi on

On June 21st, California legislature Democrats reached a tentative agreement with a group of consumer privacy activists spearheading a ballot initiative for heightened consumer privacy protections, in which the activists would withdraw the the existing ballot initiative in exchange for the California legislature passing, and Governor Jerry Brown signing into law, a similar piece of legislation, with some concessions, by June 28th, the final deadline to withdraw ballot initiatives.  If enacted, the Act would take effect January 1, 2020.

In the “compromise bill”, Assemblyman Ed Chau (D-Arcadia) amended the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, (AB 375) to ensure the consumer privacy activists, and conversely ballot initiative opponents, would be comfortable with its terms.

Some of the key consumer rights allotted for in AB 375 include:

  • A consumer’s right to request deletion of personal information which would require the business to delete information upon receipt of a verified request;
  • A consumer’s right to request that a business that sells the consumer’s personal information, or discloses it for a business purpose, disclose the categories of information that it collects and categories of information and the identity of any 3rd parties to which the information was sold or disclosed;
  • A consumer’s right to opt-out of the sale of personal information by a business prohibiting the business from discriminating against the consumer for exercising this right, including a prohibition on charging the consumer who opts-out a different price or providing the consumer a different quality of goods or services, except if the difference is reasonably related to value provided by the consumer’s data.

Covered entities under AB 375 would include, any entity that does business in the State of California and satisfies one or more of the following: (i) annual gross revenue in excess of $25 million, (ii) alone or in combination, annually buys, receives for the business’ commercial purposes, sells, or shares for commercial purposes, alone or in combination, the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices, OR (iii) Derives 50 percent or more of its annual revenues from selling consumers’ personal information.

Though far reaching, the amended AB 375 limits legal damages and provides significant concessions to business opponents of the bill. For example, the bill allows a business 30 days to “cure” any alleged violations prior to the California attorney general initiating legal action. Similarly, while a private action is permissible, a consumer is required to provide a business 30 days written notice before instituting an action, during which time the business has the same 30 days to “cure” any alleged violations.  Specifically, the bill provides: “In the event a cure is possible, if within the 30 days the business actually cures the noticed violation and provides the consumer an express written statement that the violations have been cured and that no further violations shall occur, no action for individual statutory damages or class-wide statutory damages may be initiated against the business.”  Civil penalties for actions brought by the Attorney General are capped at $7,500 for each intentional violation.  The damages in any private action brought by a consumer are not less than one hundred dollars ($100) and not greater than seven hundred and fifty ($750) per consumer per incident or actual damages, whichever is greater.

Overall, consumer privacy advocates are pleased with the amended legislation which is “substantially similar to our initiative”, said Alastair Mactaggart, a San Francisco real estate developer leading the ballot initiative. “It gives more privacy protection in some areas, and less in others.”

The consumer rights allotted for in the amended version of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, are reminiscent of those found in the European Union’s sweeping privacy regulations, the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) (See Does the GDPR Apply to Your U.S. Based Company?), that took effect May 25th. Moreover, California is not the only United States locality considering far reaching privacy protections. Recently, the Chicago City Council introduced the Personal Data Collection and Protection Ordinance, which, inter alia, would require opt-in consent from Chicago residents to use, disclose or sell their personal information. On the federal level, several legislative proposals are being considered to heighten consumer privacy protection, including the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, and the Data Security and Breach Notification Act.

We will continue to report on the status of these bills and other legislative proposals for heightened data security at the federal, state and local level as developments unfold. Given the legislative climate, it has never been more important for organizations to ensure they have practices and procedures in place to provide adequate privacy protections to the individuals whose information they obtain, handle, or store.

 

Vague FTC Order Addressing Data Security Struck Down by Federal Appellate Court

By Jeffrey M. Schlossberg on

In a significant ruling that calls into question the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) authority to regulate a private company’s data security program, a federal appellate court of appeals ruled that the agency’s cease and desist order directing implementation of a data security program should be vacated as unenforceable. LabMD, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 16-16270 (11th Cir. June 6, 2018).

In 2005, a billing manager of LabMD installed a peer-to-peer file sharing system that exposed to users a file containing personal information of 9,300 consumers. The information included names, dates of birth, social security numbers, and medical information. The file was accessed by a data security firm which brought the issue to LabMD’s attention in the hope that LabMD would retain the firm to correct the problem. When LabMD declined the offer, the security firm reported LabMD to the FTC. Notably, no other third parties accessed the files and there were no reports of identity theft.

In 2013, the FTC initiated its enforcement action alleging that LabMD had failed to use reasonable data security measures. Following a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the full Commission ruled that LabMD’s inadequate measures led to substantial injury to consumers and, thus, constituted an unfair practice under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. As a remedy, the FTC ordered that LabMD implement a data security program reasonably designed to protect consumer information.

LabMD appealed claiming that the order was not enforceable because it was too vague. Notably, the appellate court did not review the Commission’s finding of liability. The Court assumed that “LabMD’s failure to design and maintain a reasonable data security program invaded consumers’ right of privacy and thus constituted an unfair act or practice.”

Despite this conclusion, the Court noted that a remedy from the Commission must meet the requirement of “reasonable definiteness.” Therefore, the Court ruled that the order was unenforceable because it contained no prohibitions or directives as to how to stop committing any specific acts.

Looking forward, the court’s holding leaves open the ability of the FTC to continue monitoring data security. At the same time, the court’s ruling does not detail the specific practices a company must adopt in order to meet the FTC’s definition of reasonableness. Continued enforcement from the FTC can be expected as it goes back to the drawing board to determine if it can more clearly identify specifics to include in its data security orders. Only through continued monitoring of future FTC orders will companies learn what these standards are.

Below are some of our helpful resources on the FTC’s data security activity:

Louisiana Updates its Data Breach Notification Law

By Joseph J. Lazzarotti, Jason C. Gavejian and Maya Atrakchi on

And now it’s Louisiana’s turn! After several states recently enacted or strengthened existing data breach notification laws (Colorado, Arizona, South Dakota and Alabama just to name a few…), on May 20th , Louisiana Governor John Edwards signed an amendment to the state’s Database Security Breach Notification Law (Act 382) which will take effect August 1, 2018.

As with the recent overhaul of Colorado’s Data Breach Notification Act, the amendments to Louisiana’s law are significant.

Key updates to Louisiana’s new law include:

  • Expansion of personal information.

 Personal information was previously defined under the law as an individual’s first name or initial and last name in combination with any of the following additional data elements when the name or data element is not encrypted or redacted: (1) social security number; (2) driver’s license number; or (3) account number, credit or debit card number, in combination with the applicable password, security code, or access code that would allow access to an individual’s financial account.  The new law specifies its application to “an individual resident of this state” and expands the definition of ‘personal information’ to include a state identification card number; passport number; and “biometric data.”  “Biometric data” is defined as “data generated by automatic measurements of an individual’s biological characteristics such as fingerprints, voice prints, eye retina or iris, or other unique biological characteristics that are used to authenticate an individual’s identity when accessing a system or account”.

  • Breach notification requirements.

Previously, businesses were required to notify affected residents of a breach in the “most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay”. The new law now requires that this be done “not later than sixty (60) days from the discovery of a breach”. In comparison to other states’ recent amendments, a 60-day notice period is fairly long. Colorado recently included a 30-day notice period, and both Arizona and Alabama a 45-day notice period. Notably, when required notification is delayed at the request of law enforcement or due to a determination by the business that measures are necessary to determine the scope of the breach, prevent further disclosures, and restore the integrity of the data system, the business is required to provide the Louisiana Attorney General the reasons for the delay in writing within the sixty day notification period to obtain a reasonable extension of the time to notify impacted individuals.

In addition, the new law lowers the bar for allowing substitute notification (notification by e-mail, posting to the business’s Internet site and statewide media). Whereas before substitute notice was only permitted if providing notification would exceed $250,000 or notifying more than 500,000 affected residents, the amended law allows for notification where providing notification would exceed $100,000 or notifying more than 100,000 affected residents.

  • Requirements for reasonable security procedures and data disposal.

The new law requires that any person that conducts business in the state or owns or licenses computerized data that includes personal information shall:

  • Implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information to protect the personal information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure;
  • Take all reasonable steps to destroy or arrange for the destruction of the records within its custody or control containing personal information that is no longer to be retained by the person or business by shredding, erasing, or otherwise modifying the personal information in the records to make it unreadable or undecipherable through any means.

This is a significant expansion to Louisiana’s law, particularly regarding its emphasis on reasonable security practices and procedures and data destruction. It is also worth noting, that Oregon’s similar amendment to its Data Breach Notification Law that we reported on back in April, took effect on June 2nd.

Today’s nationwide patchwork of state breach notification laws continues to evolve, and requires data holders operating in multiple states or maintaining personal information of residents of multiple states to keep up with the requirements across many jurisdictions. Our recently published State Data Breach Notification Laws: Overview of the Patchwork is a great resource for understanding common provisions, and trends in state statutory amendments.

Survey Finds Healthcare Workers Understand Security Measures But Still Share Sensitive Information Through Non-Secure Email

By Michael Bertoncini on

According to reports on a recent survey, the vast majority of healthcare workers share sensitive medical information using non-secure email. The survey, conducted by Kickstand Communications, reportedly found that 87% of healthcare workers surveyed admitted to this practice. These results echo other reports finding that employees and others with access to an organization’s confidential information may pose the greatest risk to data security.

As reported by HealthITSecurity.com, key findings from the survey include:

  • Healthcare workers are 36 percent more likely to share regulated data such as patient information and credit card information via non-secure methods such as email than those working in financial services;
  • 10 percent of healthcare employees admit they do not abide by their employer’s security rules;
  • More than one-quarter of respondents share sensitive data, documents, and information externally using personal sync and share services like Dropbox;
  • Across industries, 29 percent of respondents admit sharing intellectual property via non-secure email externally; and
  • When deciding how to send sensitive documents, 60 percent of respondents across industries said they simply do what is easiest.

The survey reportedly also found that an overwhelming number of healthcare employees understand their employers’ information security policies and how to use the secure communications tools provided to them. Yet, a majority reportedly indicated that they do whatever is easiest when they need to transfer data and 64 percent said when it comes to sharing data, email is the easiest tool.

The survey results suggest that healthcare providers’ data security efforts cannot end at training employees to use their communications tools. Rather, these efforts must include programs to create a culture of information security. This can include elements such as:

  • Reminders of the reasons the security measures have been put in place;
  • Exploring ways to make secure communications systems easier to use;
  • Soliciting employee feedback on ways to make secure communications more efficient; and
  • Auditing the use of non-secure methods of communication.

As scrutiny from regulators increases and plaintiffs’ lawyers bring new claims based on data breaches, healthcare employers and employers across all industries need to be sure they walking the walk and not just talking the talk on information security.

It is critical that businesses ensure their employees have greater awareness of the sensitivity of the personal information they acquire, handle and transport, and receive training about how to be more cautious handling it. The Jackson Lewis Privacy, e-Communications and Data Security team can help your organization with employee training and implementing appropriate procedures to address these types of risks.

Below are additional Jackson Lewis resources that address employee handling of sensitive personal information in the healthcare industry:

The Supreme Court Will Rule on Data Breach Class Arbitration Suit

By Jason C. Gavejian and Maya Atrakchi on

The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted a petition for review of a data breach lawsuit addressing the issue of whether parties can pursue a class arbitration when the language in the arbitration agreement does not explicitly allow for such, Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela , No. 17-988, certiorari granted April 30, 2018. The Court will have the opportunity to clarify its 2010 decision in Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010) in which the Court ruled that parties cannot be forced into class arbitration, “unless there is contractual basis for concluding [they] agreed to do so”.

The petition for a writ of certiorari brought by Lamps Plus, a lighting retailer, presented the issue, “[w]hether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) forecloses a state-law interpretation of an arbitration agreement that would authorize class arbitration based solely on general language commonly used in arbitration agreements.” Lamps Plus argues that the 9th Circuit panel erred in ruling that the company must participate in a class arbitration of an employee’s claims when the employment agreement did not state that class arbitration was available. The employee’s claims arise from an incident of identity theft, as the result of a phishing attack, in which a third party impersonating a Lamps Plus employee convinced a fellow Lamps Plus colleague to send copies of W-2 forms for multiple Lamps Plus employees.

The employment agreement between the named plaintiff, Frank Varela, and his employer, Lamps Plus, included an arbitration clause, however it was silent on whether the clause also allowed for class arbitration. The 9th Circuit majority ruling stated that “perhaps the most reasonable” interpretation of that agreement allows for class arbitration. The circuit court analogized how Varela waiving his “right…to file a lawsuit or other civil action or proceeding” and “any right…to resolve employment disputes through trial by judge or jury,” clearly also includes waiving his right to class action lawsuits, even though the agreement does not explicitly state such.

In its petition to the Supreme Court, Lamps Plus emphasized that, “This court could not have been clearer that, in light of the fundamental differences between class and individual arbitration, the FAA prohibits exactly what the panel below did here: inferring ‘[a]n implicit agreement to authorize class action arbitration from the fact of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate,”.

Varela, on the other hand, relying on the 9th Circuit analysis, argued that the circuit court decision is consistent with the high court’s decision in Stolt-Nielsen, the FAA, and California contract law principles. “The decision creates no inter-circuit conflict and does not threaten to impose class arbitration wholesale on parties who did not agree to it. It offers only a reasonable interpretation of a single contract to determine the parties’ intent in light of background principles of state contract law,” Varela stated.

The Supreme Court will now clarify its decision in Stolt-Nielsen, and will settle an ongoing circuit split over whether, irrespective of state contract law, an agreement that does not explicitly include class arbitration can nonetheless authorize it. The Court’s decision will have major implications for employers, well beyond the data breach context. Regardless of how the Court ultimately rules, companies are advised to include unambiguous language in their employment agreements on whether class arbitration is available. For additional insight regarding class actions, including class arbitration and waivers, please visit the Class and Collective Action Update.

LexBlog