In June, Connecticut’s governor signed into law Senate Bill 949 which amended the State’s breach notification statute. The requirement that covered businesses must provide one year of identity theft protection services for certain breaches, easily the most popular aspect of the legislation, may have diverted attention from some significant aspects of this new law.

In the wake of recent, large-scale data breaches, one being the breach at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) affecting millions of federal employees, a number of bills have been battling their way through Congress to address breach notification and data security requirements at the federal level. There has been an ongoing pattern for years

Among the multitude of unpleasant issues facing a company whose network has been breached is potential liability to customers and employees whose personal information has been compromised.  However, recent district court decisions from around the country continue to limit the opportunity of those customers and employees to have their day in court.  Specifically, these cases

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

Following a string of states across the country that have strengthened their data breach notification laws in recent months, Connecticut is about to amend its law to require, among other things, that businesses provide one year of identity-theft protection for persons affected by the breach. Many businesses already extend such services to breach victims, but,

The answer to this question may depend on the actions that the insured takes when it applies for coverage and during the period the policy is in force. The demand for cyberinsurance that is intended to cover exposures from data breaches, among other things, has exploded in recent years, reports The Hill. This is

In Guidance Update No. 2015-02, the Division of Investment Management (Division) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued some high-level suggestions concerning the importance of cybersecurity for registered investment companies and registered investment advisers. The guidance outlines a number of measures these entities should consider for addressing cybersecurity risks. Of course, while some

As reported on our Benefits Law Advisor, the EEOC has issued proposed wellness program regulations. Much of the attention to those proposed rules understandably will be how they would affect the incentives employers have implemented to spur their employees to engage in healthier behaviors. The proposed rules also address, however, the confidentiality provisions under

As discussed in an earlier post, shortly after the United States Postal Service reported a data breach potentially affecting hundreds of thousands of  employees, the American Postal Workers Union filed an unfair labor practice with the National Labor Relations Board alleging the Postal Service should have bargained with the union over the impact and

Many mobile app developers do not place a high priority on data security, as illustrated by a recent IBM/Ponemon study:

  • Fifty percent of mobile app developers have no budget for security.
  • Forty percent of companies don’t scan mobile app codes for vulnerabilities.
  • The average company tests less than half of the apps it builds