Senate Bill 949 is now law in Connecticut, after being signed by Governor Malloy on June 11. As we reported, this law amends the state’s current breach notification mandate to require that for breaches of certain personal information covered business must provide one year of free identity-theft protection for affected persons. So, beginning October 1, 2015, covered companies that experience a data breach affecting a Connecticut resident – one that includes the resident’s name and Social Security number (SSN) – must offer that individual free identity theft prevention services and, if applicable, identity theft mitigation services for at least one year.

Identity Theft Protection Services: Requirements and Implications

As noted, the one-year requirement to provide identity theft protection services applies only when the breach involves a Connecticut resident’s name and SSN. Also, SB 949 requires that if such services have to be provided, the notification to the resident(s) must inform the recipient(s) on how to enroll in the services, and how to place a credit freeze on their credit file. The law also tightens the timeframe for providing all breach notifications (not just those involving free theft protection services). Breach notifications must continue to be made without unreasonable delay, but effective October 1, 2015, may not be made later than ninety days after the discovery of the breach, unless a shorter time is required under federal law.

This new mandate has significant implications for companies that have breaches involving SSNs and affecting individuals in many states including Connecticut. In such cases, the companies might feel compelled to offer identity theft protection services to all affected individuals, even though it may only be required for Connecticut residents. Of course, many businesses provide similar services already, but not in all cases.

In addition, businesses should consider evaluating potential providers of these services ahead of time so they will be ready to move quickly in the event of a breach that triggers this new mandate. Not as clear as the Connecticut requirement, some have read the California breach notification law to have a similar mandate to extend one-year of free identity theft protection services.

Another issue for businesses is determining the scope of services that needs to be offered. A cottage industry of credit monitoring, identity theft protection and remediation services has emerged. Like with most service offerings, some companies provide more extensive and thorough services than others, at varying costs. While SB 949 contains no minimum requirements for the identity theft prevention or mitigation services it requires, companies should consider the different service providers and levels of service in the marketplace to ensure their needs will be met.

As a reminder, during the legislative process for SB 949, Connecticut’s Attorney General, George Jepsen acknowledged that the law would only set “a floor for the duration of the protection” and his office may continue to “seek broader kinds of protection.” In particular, in cases where the breach involves more sensitive personal information, the AG stated he would continue this practice of seeking two years of identity theft prevention or mitigation services, even though the statute requires only one year.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Joseph J. Lazzarotti Joseph J. Lazzarotti

Joseph J. Lazzarotti is a principal in the Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He founded and currently co-leads the firm’s Privacy, Data and Cybersecurity practice group, edits the firm’s Privacy Blog, and is a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP)…

Joseph J. Lazzarotti is a principal in the Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He founded and currently co-leads the firm’s Privacy, Data and Cybersecurity practice group, edits the firm’s Privacy Blog, and is a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP) with the International Association of Privacy Professionals. Trained as an employee benefits lawyer, focused on compliance, Joe also is a member of the firm’s Employee Benefits practice group.

In short, his practice focuses on the matrix of laws governing the privacy, security, and management of data, as well as the impact and regulation of social media. He also counsels companies on compliance, fiduciary, taxation, and administrative matters with respect to employee benefit plans.

Privacy and cybersecurity experience – Joe counsels multinational, national and regional companies in all industries on the broad array of laws, regulations, best practices, and preventive safeguards. The following are examples of areas of focus in his practice:

  • Advising health care providers, business associates, and group health plan sponsors concerning HIPAA/HITECH compliance, including risk assessments, policies and procedures, incident response plan development, vendor assessment and management programs, and training.
  • Coached hundreds of companies through the investigation, remediation, notification, and overall response to data breaches of all kinds – PHI, PII, payment card, etc.
  • Helping organizations address questions about the application, implementation, and overall compliance with European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and, in particular, its implications in the U.S., together with preparing for the California Consumer Privacy Act.
  • Working with organizations to develop and implement video, audio, and data-driven monitoring and surveillance programs. For instance, in the transportation and related industries, Joe has worked with numerous clients on fleet management programs involving the use of telematics, dash-cams, event data recorders (EDR), and related technologies. He also has advised many clients in the use of biometrics including with regard to consent, data security, and retention issues under BIPA and other laws.
  • Assisting clients with growing state data security mandates to safeguard personal information, including steering clients through detailed risk assessments and converting those assessments into practical “best practice” risk management solutions, including written information security programs (WISPs). Related work includes compliance advice concerning FTC Act, Regulation S-P, GLBA, and New York Reg. 500.
  • Advising clients about best practices for electronic communications, including in social media, as well as when communicating under a “bring your own device” (BYOD) or “company owned personally enabled device” (COPE) environment.
  • Conducting various levels of privacy and data security training for executives and employees
  • Supports organizations through mergers, acquisitions, and reorganizations with regard to the handling of employee and customer data, and the safeguarding of that data during the transaction.
  • Representing organizations in matters involving inquiries into privacy and data security compliance before federal and state agencies including the HHS Office of Civil Rights, Federal Trade Commission, and various state Attorneys General.

Benefits counseling experience – Joe’s work in the benefits counseling area covers many areas of employee benefits law. Below are some examples of that work:

  • As part of the Firm’s Health Care Reform Team, he advises employers and plan sponsors regarding the establishment, administration and operation of fully insured and self-funded health and welfare plans to comply with ERISA, IRC, ACA/PPACA, HIPAA, COBRA, ADA, GINA, and other related laws.
  • Guiding clients through the selection of plan service providers, along with negotiating service agreements with vendors to address plan compliance and operations, while leveraging data security experience to ensure plan data is safeguarded.
  • Counsels plan sponsors on day-to-day compliance and administrative issues affecting plans.
  • Assists in the design and drafting of benefit plan documents, including severance and fringe benefit plans.
  • Advises plan sponsors concerning employee benefit plan operation, administration and correcting errors in operation.

Joe speaks and writes regularly on current employee benefits and data privacy and cybersecurity topics and his work has been published in leading business and legal journals and media outlets, such as The Washington Post, Inside Counsel, Bloomberg, The National Law Journal, Financial Times, Business Insurance, HR Magazine and NPR, as well as the ABA Journal, The American Lawyer, Law360, Bender’s Labor and Employment Bulletin, the Australian Privacy Law Bulletin and the Privacy, and Data Security Law Journal.

Joe served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Laura Denvir Stith on the Missouri Court of Appeals.