Has your company recently beefed up its employee identification and access security and added biometric identifiers, such as fingerprints, facial recognition, or retina scans? Have you implemented new timekeeping technology utilizing biometric identifiers like fingerprints or palm prints in lieu of punch clocks? All of these developments provide an extra measure of security control beyond key cards which can be lost or stolen, and can help to control a time-keeping fraud practice known as “buddy punching.” If you have operations and employees in Illinois (or if you utilize biometrics such as voice scans to authenticate customers located in Illinois), your risk and liability could have increased with the adoption of such biometric technology, so read on …. Continue Reading The Law of Unintended Consequences: BIPA and the Effects of the Illinois Class Action Epidemic on Employers
Earlier this month, an appellate panel of the federal DC Circuit unanimously held that individuals affected by a healthcare insurer’s data breach in 2014 could pursue claims against the insurer stemming from the cyberattack. In the process, the panel deepened a circuit split on the question of whether data breach victims have standing to pursue claims based solely on exposure of their sensitive personal information, while also adding significant risk of cyber-liability for companies that collect and store medical records of individuals.
In Attias v. CareFirst, Inc., the plaintiffs asserted claims on behalf of a purported class of one million customers of CareFirst, Inc. (“CareFirst”), a healthcare insurer in the Washington, DC metro area. In the 2014 cyberattack, hackers penetrated 22 computers and compromised the identifying health data of one million customers, including customer names, addresses, email addresses, subscriber ID numbers, and Social Security numbers. The plaintiffs did not allege that they had suffered any direct financial injury as a result of their identifying health data being exposed, but did allege they suffered an “increased risk of identity theft” as a result of CareFirst’s alleged negligent conduct. The district court granted CareFirst’s motion to dismiss, which asserted that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their alleged claims because they had not asserted either a present injury arising from the data breach or a “high enough likelihood of future injury.” Continue Reading D.C. Circuit Holds Cyber-Theft of Customers’ Medical Identifying Information Created Sufficient Increased Risk of Harm to Establish Standing
Uber failed consumers in two key ways: First by misrepresenting the extent to which it monitored its employees’ access to personal information about users and drivers, and second by misrepresenting that it took reasonable steps to secure that data….This case shows that, even if you’re a fast growing company, you can’t leave consumers behind: you must honor your privacy and security promises.”
–Acting Federal Trade Commission Chair Maureen K. Oldhausen, In the Matter of Uber Technologies, Inc., Consent Order
To read more about this important FTC Consent Order and its implications for all companies with respect to privacy policies and the promises made to users/consumers, check out this Mintz Levin Privacy Alert.
It seems as though we have been writing about this case for a lifetime. Target Corporation’s data breach saga came one step closer to a conclusion this week. On Tuesday, Target reached an $18.5 million settlement with 47 states and the District of Columbia to resolve the states’ investigation into the company’s 2013 data breach. Alabama, Wisconsin, and Wyoming were not part of the settlement. Continue Reading Target Reaches $18.5 Million Dollar Settlement in Data Breach with States
The latest edition of the Mintz TCPA Digest has been published and you can read it hot off the presses, here.
This month’s issue features updates on the latest regulatory activities and an article on a potential ruling that could have major implications for pending and future TCPA cases.
Mintz Levin’s TCPA and Consumer Calling Practice team should be on your speed dial.
You’ve had your apple a day, but you can’t keep the subpoenas away…
And, if your organization is facing a request seeking records or other materials that may contain patient health information (“PHI”), it bears repeating that while HIPAA provides a number of methods through which covered entities that hold records containing PHI may produce such records, these guidelines are closely enforced by courts. Read on for your spring check-up. Continue Reading HIPAA Spring Check-up: Your Obligations to Safeguard Third-Party Patient Health Information in medical records produced in litigation