Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On August 19, 2014, California state legislators made final amendments to a bill updating the state’s breach notification law. The amended bill, which passed the State Senate on August 21 and the Assembly on August 25, is now headed to California Governor Jerry Brown for signature. If signed, the scope of the existing law would extend to apply to entities that “maintain” personal information about California residents. Currently, only entities that “own” or “license” such personal information are required to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect the personal information from unauthorized access, destruction, modification or disclosure.

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog:

Illinois recently joined a growing number of states and municipalities that have passed “ban the box” laws regulating when employers can inquire into an applicant’s criminal history.

On July 1, 2014, Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed into law a bill that creates new safe destruction requirements for the disposal of business records containing consumer personal information. The new law requires commercial entities conducting business in Delaware to take reasonable steps to destroy their consumers’ “personal identifying information” prior to the disposal of electronic or paper records. The law will take effect on January 1, 2015.

On June 20, 2014, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed a bill into law that repeals and replaces the state’s existing breach notification statute with a similar law entitled the Florida Information Protection Act (Section 501.171 of the Florida Statutes) (the “Act”).

On June 12, 2014, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy signed a bill into law that may require retailers to modify their existing Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) authorizations for pharmacy reward programs. The law, which will become effective on July 1, 2014, obligates retailers to provide consumers with a “plain language summary of the terms and conditions” of their pharmacy reward programs before the consumers may enroll. It also requires retailers to include specific content in their authorization forms that are required pursuant to the HIPAA. If the consumer is required to sign a HIPAA authorization to participate in a pharmacy reward program, the authorization must include the following items “adjacent to the point where the HIPAA authorization form is to be signed:”

On May 21, 2014, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris issued guidance for businesses (“Guidance”) on how to comply with recent updates to the California Online Privacy Protection Act (“CalOPPA”). The recent updates to CalOPPA include requirements that online privacy notices disclose how a site responds to “Do Not Track” signals, and whether third parties may collect personal information about consumers who use the site. In an accompanying press release, the Attorney General stated that the Guidance is intended to provide a “tool for businesses to create clear and transparent privacy policies that reflect the state’s privacy laws and allow consumers to make informed decisions.” The Guidance is not legally binding; it is intended to encourage companies to draft transparent online privacy notices.

On May 1, 2014, the White House released a report examining how Big Data is affecting government, society and commerce. In addition to questioning longstanding tenets of privacy legislation, such as notice and consent, the report recommends (1) passing national data breach legislation, (2) revising the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”), and (3) advancing the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.

On April 10, 2014, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear signed into law a data breach notification statute requiring persons and entities conducting business in Kentucky to notify individuals whose personally identifiable information was compromised in certain circumstances. The law will take effect on July 14, 2014.

On January 21, 2014, Hunton & Williams’ Global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice group hosted the latest webcast in its Hunton Global Privacy Update series. The program highlighted some of the key privacy developments that companies will encounter in 2014, including cybersecurity issues in the U.S., California’s Do Not Track legislation, Safe Harbor, the EU General Data Protection Regulation and the CNIL’s new cookie guidance.

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog, the “ban the box” movement continues to sweep through state legislatures. “Ban the box” laws, which vary in terms of scope and detail, generally prohibit employers from requesting information about job applicants’ criminal histories. Recent legislation in two states applies “ban the box” prohibitions to private employers in those states:

• On December 1, 2013, a new North Carolina law went into effect that prohibits employers from inquiring about job applicants’ arrests, charges or convictions ...

On December 2, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it will host a series of seminars to examine the privacy implications of three new areas of technology used to track, market to and analyze consumers: mobile device tracking, predictive scoring and consumer-generated health data. The seminars will address (1) businesses tracking consumers using signals from the consumers’ mobile devices, (2) the use of predictive scoring to determine consumers’ access to products and offers, and (3) consumer-generated information provided to non-HIPAA covered websites and apps. The FTC stated that the intention of the seminars is to bring attention to new trends in big data and their impact on consumer privacy.

On November 22, 2013, New Jersey’s Acting Attorney General announced that the State had entered into a settlement agreement with Dokogeo, Inc. (“Dokogeo”), a California-based company that makes mobile device applications, regarding allegations that one of the company’s mobile apps violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (“COPPA”), the recently amended Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (the “Rule”) and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

On November 13, 2013, Google entered into a $17 million settlement agreement with the attorneys general from 37 states and the District of Columbia related to allegations that the company bypassed users’ cookie-blocking settings on Apple’s Safari browser in 2011 and 2012. The settlement requires Google to refrain from bypassing cookie controls in the future and requires Google to maintain a page on its site informing users about cookies and how to manage them. Last year, Google agreed to a $22.5 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission in connection with similar ...

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog:

In a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on November 4, 2013, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on the grounds that the agency’s April 2012 Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions “purports to preempt the State’s sovereign power to enact and abide by state-law hiring practices.” In particular, the complaint argues against the EEOC’s prohibition against blanket “no felons” hiring policies. The Texas AG’s complaint highlights key failures and shortcomings of the EEOC’s recent investigative actions, and provides detailed examples of the “real world” effect of the guidance on the state’s hiring decisions.

On October 12, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed an electronic communications privacy bill. The bill, SB 467, would have compelled law enforcement to obtain a search warrant before seeking to access any email or other electronic communication maintained by service providers. The bill went beyond the scope of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which obligates law enforcement to obtain search warrants only for electronic communications that are unopened or stored by service providers for fewer than 180 days. The California bill was very similar to a bill signed into law in Texas earlier in 2013 that required law enforcement agencies to obtain warrants before accessing customer electronic data held by email service providers.

On September 27, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a bill amending the California Online Privacy Protection Act (“CalOPPA”) to require website privacy notices to disclose how the site responds to “Do Not Track” signals, and whether third parties may collect personal information when a consumer uses the site. Although the changes to the law do not prohibit online behavioral advertising, this is the first law in the United States to impose disclosure requirements on website operators that track consumers’ online behavior.

On September 23, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that adds “Privacy Rights for California Minors in the Digital World” to the California Online Privacy Protection Act (“CalOPPA”). The new CalOPPA provisions prohibit online marketing or advertising certain products to anyone under age 18, and require website operators to honor requests made by minors who are registered users to remove content the minor posted on the site. In addition, operators must provide notice and instructions to minors explaining their rights regarding the removal of content they’ve posted.

On September 4, 2013, California state legislators passed an amendment to the state’s breach notification law. The bill, SB 46, would expand notification requirements to include security incidents involving the compromise of personal information that would permit access to an online or email account. Pursuant to SB 46, the definition of “personal information” contained in Sections 1798.29 and 1798.82 of California’s Civil Code would be amended to include “a user name or email address, in combination with a password or security question and answer that would permit access to an online account.” Notably, the compromise of these data elements alone  ̶  even when not in conjunction with an individual’s first name or first initial and last name  ̶  would trigger a notification obligation under the amended law. In addition, the bill does not limit the data elements that constitute “personal information” to those that would permit access to an individual’s financial account.

On April 19, 2013, the North Dakota legislature amended the state’s breach notification law (Section 51-30-01 of the North Dakota Century Code) to expand the definition of “personal information” to include “health insurance information” and “medical information.” Pursuant to the amended breach law, “health insurance information” is defined to mean an “individual’s health insurance policy number or subscriber identification number and any unique identifier used by a health insurer to identify the individual.” “Medical information” is defined to mean “any information regarding an individual’s medical history, mental or physical condition, or medical treatment or diagnosis by a health care professional.” The amendment also carves out an exemption for covered entities, business associates and subcontractors that are subject to the breach notification requirements of 45 C.F.R. 164, Subpart D.

On July 12, 2013, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan announced that she sent letters to operators of eight popular health-related websites requesting information about the websites’ online data collection practices. The Attorney General’s press release underscored how individuals’ health-related information shared online, which would be protected if disclosed in a traditional medical setting, “can be captured, shared and sold when online users enter their information into a website.” The Attorney General also stated that “website disclosure about the extent to which information is captured or shared is buried in privacy policies not found on the websites’ main pages.”

On June 14, 2013, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed a bill requiring law enforcement agencies to obtain warrants before accessing customer electronic data held by email service providers. Introduced on March 4, 2013, the bill passed unanimously in both the Texas House and Senate on May 7 and May 22, respectively. The law takes effect immediately.

A state court has dismissed the California Attorney General’s claims that Delta Air Lines Inc. (“Delta”) violated the California Online Privacy Protection Act by failing to have an appropriately posted privacy policy for its mobile application, Bloomberg reports. The California AG sued Delta in December as part of an enforcement campaign that began with the issuance of warning letters to approximately 100 operators of mobile apps, including Delta. According to the Bloomberg report, a basis for the dismissal was the federal Airline Deregulation Act, under which a state ...

On April 9, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) preempted a Florida law regarding the disclosure of patient records by nursing homes. The law required nursing homes in Florida to provide the medical records of a deceased nursing home resident to the “spouse, guardian, surrogate, proxy, or attorney in fact,” including “medical and psychiatric records and any records concerning the care and treatment of the resident performed by the facility, except progress notes and consultation report sections of a psychiatric nature.”

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog:

On March 19, 2013, in Standard Fire Insurance Co .v. Knowles, the United States Supreme Court ruled that stipulations by a named plaintiff on behalf of a proposed class prior to class certification cannot serve as the basis for avoiding federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”).

On March 12, 2013, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen announced that a coalition of 38 states had entered into a $7 million settlement with Google Inc. (“Google”) regarding its collection of unsecured Wi-Fi data via the company’s Street View vehicles between 2008 and 2010. The settlement is the culmination of a multi-year investigation by the states that we first reported on in 2010.

On March 11, 2013, in Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc., the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court effectively reinstated the suit against the retailer by answering favorably for the plaintiff three certified questions from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts regarding Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93, Section 105(a) entitled “Consumer Privacy in Commercial Transactions” (“Section 105(a)”). The court ruled that (1) a ZIP code constitutes personal identification information under the Massachusetts law; (2) a plaintiff may bring an action for a violation of the Massachusetts law absent identity fraud; and (3) the term “credit card transaction form” refers equally to electronic and paper transaction forms. The Massachusetts court’s determination that a ZIP code constitutes personal identification information is similar to the determination in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., in which the California Supreme Court held that ZIP codes are “personal identification information” under California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. More than 15 states, including Massachusetts and California, have statutes limiting the type of information that retailers can collect from customers.

On February 4, 2013, the Supreme Court of California examined whether Section 1747.08 of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act (“Song-Beverly”) prohibits an online retailer from requesting or requiring personal identification information from a customer as a condition to accepting a credit card as payment for an electronically downloadable product. In a split decision, the majority of the court ruled that Song-Beverly does not apply to online purchases in which the product is downloaded electronically.

As reported in BNA’s Privacy & Security Law Report, on December 14, 2012, a federal district court in California ruled that a retail store’s policy of collecting personal information only after providing customers with receipts does not violate the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act (“Song-Beverly”). Under Section 1747.08(a)(2) of Song-Beverly, a retailer that accepts credit cards for the transaction of business may not “[r]equest, or require as a condition to accepting the credit card as payment … the cardholder to provide personal identification information,” which the entity accepting the credit card then “writes, causes to be written, or otherwise records upon the credit card transaction form or otherwise.”

On January 7, 2013, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced that several Massachusetts medical practices have agreed to a consent judgment and $140,000 payment to settle charges they improperly disposed of medical information. The defendants, which include several pathology practices and a firm that provided medical billing services to those practices, were accused of dumping hard copy medical records at the Georgetown Transfer Station, a waste management facility open to the public. The records allegedly contained the names, Social Security numbers and medical diagnoses of approximately 67,000 individuals. The illegal dumping allegations were publicized in a Boston Globe article after a photographer for the newspaper discovered medical records at the facility while he was disposing of his own trash.

On December 6, 2012, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris announced a lawsuit against Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) for violations of the California Online Privacy Protection Act (“CalOPPA”). The suit, which the Attorney General filed in the San Francisco Superior Court, alleges that Delta failed to conspicuously post a privacy policy within Delta’s “Fly Delta” mobile application to inform users of what personally identifiable information is collected and how it is being used by the company. CalOPPA requires “an operator of a commercial Web site or online service that collects personally identifiable information through the Internet about individual consumers residing in California who use or visit its commercial Web site or online service,” such as a mobile application, to post a privacy policy that contains the elements set out in CalOPPA. According to Attorney General Harris’ complaint, Delta has operated the “Fly Delta” application for smartphones and other electronic devices since at least 2010. The complaint alleges that “[d]espite collecting substantial personally identifiable information (“PII”) such as user’s full name, telephone number, email address, frequent flyer account number and PIN code, photographs, and geo-location, the Fly Delta application does not have a privacy policy. It does not have a privacy policy in the application itself, in the platform stores from which the application may be downloaded, or on Delta’s website.”

In late October 2012, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris began sending letters to approximately 100 mobile app operators, informing them that they are not in compliance with the California Online Privacy Protection Act (“CalOPPA”). Pursuant to CalOPPA, “an operator of a commercial Web site or online service that collects personally identifiable information through the Internet about individual consumers residing in California who use or visit its commercial Web site or online service” must post a privacy policy that contains specified elements. A mobile app arguably could be an “online service” under CalOPPA, which provides that an online service operator that collects “personally identifiable information” and “fails to post its policy within 30 days after being notified of noncompliance” is in violation of CalOPPA. The law affects a wide range of mobile app operators because of its very broad definition of “personally identifiable information,” which includes any “individually identifiable information about an individual consumer collected online by the operator from that individual and maintained by the operator in an accessible form,” such as a name, an email address or any other identifier “that permits the physical or online contacting of a specific individual.”

On October 30, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled that an opt-out confirmation text sent by Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. (“Citibank”) did not violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). Under a “common sense” interpretation, the court determined that Citibank’s opt-out text does not demonstrate the type of invasion of privacy the TCPA seeks to prevent.

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog:

Employees use social media extensively in communication for personal and business reasons. Employers are increasingly monitoring this use, and insisting on access to some of the more popular sites. California took notice of this trend and passed legislation to protect employee privacy. On September 27, 2012, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. signed AB 1844 making California the third state to limit access to employees’ social media account, joining Maryland and Illinois.

On August 23, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held in Retailer Ventures, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. that losses resulting from the theft of customers’ banking information from a retailer’s computer system are covered under a commercial crime policy’s computer fraud endorsement.

As reported in BNA’s Privacy & Security Law Report,on June 25, 2012, a federal district court in California ruled that the California Supreme Court’s 2011 Pineda decision, which held that requesting and recording zip codes during credit card transactions violates the state’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, applies retrospectively to OfficeMax’s collection of zip codes from its customers. The Plaintiffs in Dardarian v. OfficeMax had filed a class action lawsuit against OfficeMax over the company’s collection of ZIP code information from customers at the point of sale, a practice that OfficeMax ended the day the Pineda decision was handed down.

On July 19, 2012, California Attorney General Kamala Harris announced the formation of a new Privacy Enforcement and Protection Unit (“Privacy Unit”) within the state’s Department of Justice. The new unit will centralize existing Department of Justice efforts to protect privacy, educate consumers and forge partnerships with relevant industry players. According to the Attorney General’s press release, the broad mission of the Privacy Unit will include enforcing laws on issues such as cyber privacy, health privacy, financial privacy, identity theft, government ...

In recent weeks, both state and federal regulators have considered security breach notification legislation. On June 15, 2012, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy signed a budget bill that, among other things, amends the state’s security breach notification law. The changes, which will take effect on October 1, 2012, most notably require businesses to notify the state Attorney General no later than the time when notice of a security breach is provided to state residents. Although the law does not specify when notice must be provided to affected individuals, the law states that such notice must be made “without unreasonable delay,” subject to law enforcement delays and the completion of an investigation by the business to determine the nature and scope of the incident, to identify affected individuals, or to restore the reasonable integrity of the data system. As we previously reported, Vermont also recently amended its breach notification statute to require businesses to notify the state Attorney General within 14 days of discovering a security breach or concurrently when notifying consumers, whichever is sooner.

On May 24, 2012, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced that South Shore Hospital agreed to a consent judgment and $750,000 payment to settle a lawsuit stemming from a data breach that occurred in February 2010. At that time, South Shore Hospital shipped several boxes of unencrypted back-up tapes to a service provider in Texas to erase them. The tapes contained the personal and protected health information of approximately 800,000 individuals, including names, Social Security numbers, financial account numbers and medical diagnoses. Several of the boxes went missing and have yet to be recovered, though there is no evidence that the information on the missing tapes has been misused.

On June 1, 2012, the Attorney General of Vermont announced a series of recent legislative moves to enhance the state’s consumer protection laws, including amendments to Vermont’s security breach notification law. The changes, which were signed into law by Governor Peter Shumlin in early May, include a revised definition of “security breach,” the addition of a 45-day timing requirement for notifying affected consumers, and a requirement to notify the state Attorney General within 14 days of discovering the breach (or when notifying consumers, if sooner).

As reported in BNA’s Privacy & Security Law Report, on May 4, 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in an action against IKEA U.S. West, Inc. (“IKEA”) under the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 (the “Song-Beverly Act”). The suit alleges that IKEA violated the Song-Beverly Act by requesting that cardholders provide their ZIP codes during credit card transactions, and then recording that information in an electronic database. The Court found that the class definition was not overbroad and that IKEA’s practice of requesting ZIP codes demonstrated common questions of law best resolved through a class action.

On April 9, 2012, Maryland became the first state to pass legislation that would prevent employers from asking or forcing employees and applicants to hand over their social media login credentials. The bill, which passed the state Senate unanimously (Senate Bill 433) and the House of Delegates by a wide margin (House Bill 964), now awaits Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley’s signature.

On April 5, 2012, social media giant Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) filed a civil lawsuit against spammers and makers of spamming software claiming violations of Twitter’s user agreement and various California state and common laws. Borrowing from the popular term for unsolicited email messages, Twitter’s complaint describes “spam” on Twitter as “a variety of abusive behaviors” including “posting a Tweet with a harmful link … and abusing the @reply and @mention functions to post unwanted messages to a user.” The suit alleges that certain defendants violated Twitter’s Terms of Service, which prohibit “spam and abuse,” by distributing software tools “designed to facilitate abuse of the Twitter platform and marketed to dupe customers into violating Twitter’s user agreement.” Other defendants allegedly operated large numbers of automated Twitter accounts through which they attempted to “trick Twitter users into clicking on links to illegitimate websites.”

On March 21, 2012, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced that Maloney Properties Inc. (“MPI”), a property management firm, executed an Assurance of Discontinuance and agreed to pay $15,000 in civil penalties following an October 2011 theft of an unencrypted company-issued laptop. The laptop contained personal information of more than 600 Massachusetts residents and was left in an employee’s car overnight. MPI has indicated that it has no evidence of unauthorized access to or use of the personal information in connection with this breach.

The American Bar Association’s (“ABA’s”) House of Delegates adopted a non-binding resolution urging courts to consider foreign data protection and privacy laws when resolving discovery issues. The full text of the resolution is as follows:

“RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges that, where possible in the context of the proceedings before them, U.S. federal, state, territorial, tribal and local courts consider and respect, as appropriate, the data protection and privacy laws of any applicable foreign sovereign, and the interests of any person who is subject to or benefits from such laws, with regard to data sought in discovery in civil litigation.”

On January 24, 2011, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen and Consumer Protection Commissioner William Rubenstein announced that they had reached an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (“AVC”) with Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (“MetLife”) in connection with an incident involving the disclosure of customer personal information on the Internet. In November 2009, a MetLife employee posted the personally identifiable information of current and former MetLife customers, including their Social Security numbers, on the Internet. Following the discovery of the posting, MetLife acted to mitigate possible harm by providing credit monitoring and identity theft insurance to the affected customers.

On January 19, 2012, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced a lawsuit against Accretive Health, Inc., (“Accretive”) for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and its implementing regulations, the Minnesota Health Records Act, Minnesota’s debt collection statutes and Minnesota’s consumer protection laws. The suit, which was filed in Federal District Court in Minnesota, alleges that Accretive failed to adequately safeguard patients’ protected health information (“PHI”). This failure contributed to a July 2011 information security breach when an Accretive employee left an unencrypted laptop containing information of approximately 23,500 patients in a rental car. The laptop was stolen and has not yet been recovered.

On January 6, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted Michaels Stores, Inc.’s (“Michaels”) a motion to dismiss against a customer-plaintiff who alleged that Michaels’ in-store information collection practices violated Massachusetts law. Although the court ruled in Michaels’ favor, it found that customer ZIP codes do constitute personal information under Massachusetts state law when collected in the context of a credit card transaction. 

On November 4, 2011, Law360 interviewed Lisa J. Sotto, partner and head of the Global Privacy and Data Security practice at Hunton & Williams LLP. In a question and answer session, Sotto discussed the challenges of working with multinational companies on compliance with privacy laws, and addressed questions related to her practice and career. Read the full interview.

On October 27, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed claims that Facebook misappropriated users’ names and likenesses in promoting its “Friend Finder” feature. Friend Finder identifies potential “friends” for a Facebook user by matching his or her email contacts with users already registered with Facebook, then presenting the user with friend suggestions. Facebook promoted the feature by displaying the names and profile photos of current friends as examples of users who had found friends with Friend Finder.

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog:

California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed into law Senate Bill No. 559 (SB 559), which prohibits discrimination based on an individual’s genetic information. While SB 559 significantly expands the protections from genetic discrimination provided under the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), at this time, its impact on most California employers is thought to be limited to the potential for greater damages to be awarded under it than under its federal counterpart.

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog, on October 10, 2011, California became the seventh state to enact legislation restricting public and private employers alike from using consumer credit reports in making hiring and other personnel decisions. Assembly Bill No. 22 both adds a new provision to the California Labor Code -- Section 1024.5 -- and amends California’s Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA”). Effective January 1, 2012, California employers will be prohibited from requesting a consumer credit report for employment purposes unless they meet one of the limited statutory exceptions, and those employers meeting an exception, will be subjected to increased disclosure requirements. Connecticut, Illinois, Hawaii, Oregon, Maryland and Washington already have similar laws on the books, and many other states, as well as the federal government, are contemplating similar legislation. This trend creates a potential “credit-centric” minefield for employers that do business in any one or more of these states. In light of the multiple laws affecting their use, employers who utilize consumer credit reports in making personnel decisions should proceed cautiously. Employers must evaluate the need for these reports in making personnel decisions, review and modify their policies to ensure compliance with the myriad of regulations in this area, and monitor any new developments to ensure continued compliance.

Last month, two New Jersey judges issued opposing decisions in class action lawsuits regarding merchants’ point-of-sale ZIP code collection practices. The conflicting orders leave unanswered the question of whether New Jersey retailers are prohibited from requiring and recording customers’ ZIP codes at the point of sale during credit card transactions.

Over the past several weeks, online tracking practices involving the use of Flash cookies and ETags have been the subject of new research studies, class action lawsuits and significant media attention.

On August 31, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law amendments to that state’s security breach notification statute.  The revisions establish new content requirements for breach notification letters to California residents, and mandate notification to the state Attorney General when a breach affects more than 500 Californians.  Senate Bill 24 was the third effort by State Senator Joe Simitian to build on the landmark California breach notification law he authored in 2002.  The two previous bills he proposed were passed by the California legislature, but vetoed by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

On June 9, 2011, Lisa J. Sotto, partner and head of Hunton & Williams LLP’s Privacy and Data Security practice, spoke during the regulatory session on state and federal laws at NetDiligence’s Cyber Risk & Privacy Liability Forum in Philadelphia.  Sotto discussed recent changes to the legal landscape, emphasizing regulatory authorities’ growing interest in policy and enforcement issues and increased legislative activity on the state and federal levels.

View an excerpt from Sotto’s remarks as part of the panel discussion.

On July 29, 2011, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced a $7,500 settlement with Belmont Savings Bank following a May 2011 data breach involving the names, Social Security numbers and account numbers of more than 13,000 Massachusetts residents.  The bank has stated that it has no evidence of unauthorized access to or use of consumers’ personal information in connection with this breach.

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog, Connecticut recently became the latest state to pass a law regulating employer use of credit reports. The law, which goes into effect on October 1, 2011, prohibits employers from requiring employees or prospective employees to consent to the employer requesting their credit report as a condition of employment.  The full post includes a discussion of the exceptions to this restriction.

Read our previous posts on regulatory scrutiny of employee credit checks and a similar Illinois law that went into effect on January 1 ...

Last month, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed a health privacy bill into law that imposes new obligations exceeding the requirements in the HIPAA Privacy Rule.  The law, which will become effective on September 1, 2012, incorporates the expanded definition of the term “covered entity” in Texas’s existing health privacy law and could have a broad impact on many non-HIPAA covered entities.

On June 23, 2011, in a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled in IMS Health Inc. v. Sorrell that a Vermont law prohibiting the sale of prescriber-identifiable data to drug companies was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.  Thomas Julin, a partner at Hunton & Williams LLP, represented IMS Health in this case.  The Supreme Court’s ruling affirmed the holding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, resolving a split with the First Circuit (which upheld a similar law in New Hampshire), and likely preventing the enactment of similar restrictive laws across the country.

On June 9, 2011, two plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Google in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The complaint alleges that Google’s Android phone “engaged in illegal tracking and recording of [p]laintiffs’ movements and locations … without their knowledge or consent” and that Google violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Florida statutory and common law by failing to inform Android users that their movements were being tracked and recorded through their phones.

On May 11, 2011, in Thomas Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted in part and denied in part defendant Spokeo, Inc.’s motion to dismiss claims that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).  The ruling allows the plaintiff to continue his action against Spokeo, a website that aggregates data about individuals from both online and offline sources.

A new bill proposed in California, the Social Networking Privacy Act (the “Act”), would force social networking websites to establish default privacy settings for their users that prohibit such sites from publicly displaying most information about users without the users’ consent.  Given that many social networking websites currently have default settings that make user personal information and photos public unless the user changes those settings, the Act would represent a fundamental shift in social networking privacy.

On April 26, 2011, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Sorrell v. IMS Health, a case concerning the constitutionality of a Vermont law that restricts access to prescription drug records.  Laws enacted by New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont prohibit pharmacies from selling prescriber-identifiable information in prescription records to third parties for marketing purposes.  The Supreme Court seeks to resolve a circuit split that resulted from legal challenges to the statutes in all three states.  Thomas Julin, partner at Hunton & Williams LLP, represents IMS Health ...

On April 25, 2011, Legal Bisnow interviewed Marty Abrams, Executive Director of the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams LLP, and Hunton & Williams partner Lisa Sotto about hot topics in privacy and data protection.

Read Legal Bisnow’s article, “Hottest Practice Area?”.

As reported in BNA’s Privacy Law Watch, on April 1, 2011, a New York law went in effect requiring manufacturers of certain electronic equipment, including devices that have hard drives capable of storing personal information or other confidential data, to register with the Department of Environmental Conservation and maintain an electronic waste acceptance program.  The program must include convenient methods for consumers to return electronic waste to the manufacturer and instructions on how consumers can destroy data on the devices before recycling or disposing of them.  Retailers of covered electronic equipment will be required to provide consumers with information at the point of sale about opportunities offered by manufacturers for the return of electronic waste, to the extent they have been provided such information by the manufacturer.

On March 28, 2011, the Briar Group, LLC, owner and operator of several Boston-area bars and restaurants, reached a settlement with Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley regarding the breach of “tens of thousands” of consumers’ payment card information.  The settlement resolves a lawsuit filed in Massachusetts Superior Court alleging that in April 2009 hackers gained access to the Briar Group’s computer systems and misappropriated customer data by installing malcode which was not removed by the company until December of that year.  The complaint further alleged that the Briar Group’s lax data protection practices, such as allowing employees to share computer passwords and failing to secure network wireless connections, put customers’ personal information at risk.

On March 11, 2011, Virginia resident Peter Comstock filed a class action complaint against Netflix, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  According to the complaint, Netflix “tracks its users’ viewing habits with respect to both videos watched over the Internet...and physical movies ordered through the Internet and watched at home,” while encouraging “subscribers to rank the videos they watch.”  The complaint alleges that Netflix’s practice of maintaining customer movie rental history and recommendations, “long after subscribers cancel their Netflix subscription,” violates the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”), and California’s Customer Records Act and Unfair Competition Law.  In addition, the complaint alleges that Netflix’s failure to properly store user information and its sale of customer data to third parties led to its unjust enrichment and a breach of its fiduciary duty.  Comstock and the putative class are seeking both an injunction to stop Netflix’s current practices and monetary damages.

On February 10, 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. that ZIP codes are “personal identification information” under the state’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 (the “Credit Card Act”).  This finding effectively prohibits California businesses from requesting and recording cardholders’ ZIP codes during credit card transactions.

Connecticut’s newly-elected Attorney General George Jepsen recently announced an agreement with Google, Inc. concerning the company’s refusal to comply with a Civil Investigative Demand brought by his predecessor, freshman Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).  According to a January 28, 2011 press release, to facilitate settlement discussions with the Connecticut-led, 40-state coalition, Google will stipulate that “payload data” compiled in 2008 and 2009 “contained URLs of requested Web pages, partial or complete e-mail communications or other information, including confidential and private information” transmitted by individuals across unsecured wireless networks.

In the past two months, lawmakers in three states have introduced legislation that would expand the scope of certain security breach notification requirements.

Virginia SB 1041

On January 11, 2011, Virginia lawmakers introduced SB 1041, which would amend the state’s health breach notification statute to impose notification requirements on businesses, individuals and other private entities, in the event unencrypted or unredacted computerized medical information they own or license is reasonably believed to have been accessed and acquired by an unauthorized person.  The law currently applies only to organizations, corporations and agencies supported by public funds.  In addition to broadening the scope of the law’s applicability, the amendment would permit the Virginia Attorney General to impose a civil penalty of up to $150,000 per breach (or series of similar breaches that are discovered pursuant to a single investigation), without limiting the ability of individuals to recover direct economic damages for violations.

Update: On February 11, 2011, BNA's Privacy Law Watch reported that SB 1041 had failed and would not be carried over to the next legislative session.

In late December 2010, consumers filed two class action lawsuits against Apple Inc., claiming that several applications they downloaded from Apple’s App Store sent their personal information to third parties without their consent.  Specifically, the consumers claim that Apple allowed third party advertising networks to follow user activity through the Unique Device Identifiers that Apple assigns each device that downloads applications.  The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, also named several application developers such as Pandora and The Weather Channel as co-defendants.

On October 5, 2010, the Department of Energy (“DOE”) released a report entitled “Data Access and Privacy Issues Related to Smart Grid Technologies.”  The idea behind the Smart Grid is that electricity can be delivered more efficiently using data collected through monitoring consumers’ energy use.  In connection with the preparation of its report, the DOE surveyed industry, state and federal practices with respect to Smart Grid technologies, focusing on the issue of residential consumer data security and privacy.  The DOE noted that advanced meters or “smart meters” were a focal point of the report due to their “ability to measure, record and transmit granular individual consumption.”  That said, a Smart Grid consists of “hundreds of technologies and thousands of components, most of which do not generate data relevant to consumer privacy.”

On August 18, 2010, the Connecticut Insurance Department (the “Department”) issued Bulletin IC-25, which requires entities subject to its jurisdiction to notify the Department in writing of any “information security incident” within five calendar days after an incident is identified.  In addition to providing detailed procedures and information to be included in the notification, the Bulletin states that the Department “will want to review, in draft form, any communications proposed to be made” to affected individuals.  The Bulletin further indicates that, “depending on the type of incident and information involved, the Department will also want to have discussions regarding the level of credit monitoring and insurance protection which the Department will require to be offered to affected consumers and for what period of time.”

On August 18, 2010, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that Specific Media, Inc. violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as well as state privacy and computer security laws, by failing to provide adequate notice regarding its online tracking practices.  The suit, brought by six web users, seeks class action status and over $5 million in damages, and cites Specific Media’s use of Flash cookies to re-create deleted browser cookies as one of the offending practices.

On August 10, 2010, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed the Employee Credit Privacy Act, which prohibits most Illinois employers from inquiring about an applicant’s or employee’s credit history or using an individual’s credit history as a basis for an employment decision.  The definition of “employer” under the Act exempts banks, insurance companies, law enforcement agencies, debt collectors and state and local government agencies that require the use of credit history.

On July 21, 2010, a coalition of 38 states sent a letter to Google demanding more information about the company’s collection of data from unsecured wireless networks by its Google Street View vehicles.  The letter was sent by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal on behalf of the executive committee of a multistate working group investigating Google Street View practices.  As we reported on June 22, Blumenthal has spearheaded the nationwide investigation into Google Street View.  Among other things, the letter asks Google to identify who was responsible for the software code that allowed the Street View cars to collect data broadcast over Wi-Fi networks, and for a list of states where unauthorized data collection occurred.  The letter also asks Google for details regarding whether any of the data was disclosed to third parties or used for marketing purposes.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal recently announced that his office will lead a multistate investigation into the “deeply disturbing” unauthorized collection of personal data from wireless computer networks by Google’s Street View cars.  Attorney General Blumenthal noted that Google “must provide a complete and comprehensive explanation of how this unauthorized data collection happened, why the information was kept if collection was inadvertent and what action will prevent a recurrence.”  A significant number of states are expected to ...

Rejecting a defense based on compliance with the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), a federal court in Ohio denied a medical clinic’s motion to dismiss invasion of privacy claims following the clinic’s disclosure of medical records to a grand jury.  In Turk v. Oiler, No. 09-CV-381 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 1, 2010), plaintiff Turk had been under investigation for illegally carrying a concealed weapon and for having a weapon while under disability in violation of an Ohio law which provides that “no person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any firearm” if “[t]he person is drug dependent, in danger of drug dependence, or a chronic alcoholic.”  Defendant Cleveland Clinic, where Turk was a patient, received a grand jury subpoena requesting “medical records to include but not be limited to drug and alcohol counseling and mental issues regarding James G. Turk.”  When the Cleveland Clinic disclosed Turk’s medical records in response to this subpoena, Turk sued the clinic for violating his privacy rights.

Legislators at the federal and state levels are urging social networking websites to enhance privacy protections available to their users.  On April 27, 2010, four U.S. Senators wrote a letter to Facebook’s CEO expressing “concern regarding recent changes to the Facebook privacy policy and the use of personal data on third party websites.”  The letter urged Facebook to provide opt-in mechanisms for users, as opposed to lengthy opt-out processes, and highlighted default sharing of personal information, third-party advertisers’ data storage and instant personalization features as three areas of concern.

On April 20, 2010, the Department of Commerce (“DOC”) issued a Notice of Inquiry to solicit public feedback “on the impact of current privacy laws in the United States and around the world on the pace of innovation in the information economy.”  The aim is to understand “whether current privacy laws serve consumer interests and fundamental democratic values.”  To this end, the DOC poses a number of questions, including:

• Is the notice and choice approach to consumer privacy outmoded?  Would consumers be better served by a “use-based” model?
• How does compliance with ...

On April 7, 2010, Mississippi became the 46th state to enact a data security breach notification law.  The law, which will take effect July 1, 2011, applies to the unauthorized acquisition of unencrypted electronic files, media, databases or computerized data containing personal information of any Mississippi resident.  The law contains a harm threshold specifying that notification is not required if it can be reasonably determined that the breach will not likely result in harm to affected individuals.  The enactment of this law leaves Alabama, Kentucky, New Mexico and South Dakota ...

On March 30, 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled for the former employee in Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc. on the employee’s claim that state common privacy law protected certain of her emails from review by the employer.

The Attorney General of Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, is investigating an alleged breach of medical records at Griffin Hospital in Derby, Connecticut.  The hospital believes that a formerly affiliated radiologist gained unauthorized access to its digital Picture Archiving and Communications System (“PACS”), which stores patient information, including names, exam descriptions and medical record numbers.  In February, the hospital began receiving inquiries from patients who had been contacted by the radiologist to promote professional services offered at another medical facility.  In response to patient inquiries, the hospital conducted an internal investigation that revealed several instances of unauthorized access to the PACS system.  The hospital subsequently notified Attorney General Blumenthal.

In 2009, for the first time in three years, more publicly reported data security breaches were caused by hackers than by other sources, such as insider theft.  The nonprofit Identity Theft Resource Center (“ITRC”) tracks breaches involving five categories of data loss: (i) “data on the move,” such as lost laptops; (ii) accidental exposure; (iii) insider theft; (iv) losses involving subcontractors; and (v) hacking.  The ITRC’s 2009 Breach Report analyzed 498 publicly reported breaches affecting over 222 million total records, concluding that hacking may be on the rise.

After several delays and revisions, the Massachusetts information security regulations, entitled “Standards for the Protection of Personal Information of Residents of the Commonwealth,” will take effect on March 1, 2010. The regulations apply to entities that own or license personal information about Massachusetts residents. “Personal information” is defined as a combination of a resident’s first and last name and Social Security number, driver’s license or state ID number, or financial account number or payment card number that permits access to the individual’s financial account.

Cloud computing raises complex legal issues related to privacy and information security.  As legislators and regulators around the world grapple with the privacy and data security implications of cloud computing, companies seeking to implement cloud-based solutions should closely monitor this rapidly evolving legal landscape for developments.  In an article published on February 3, 2010, Lisa Sotto, Bridget Treacy and Melinda McLellan explore U.S. and EU legal requirements applicable to data stored by cloud providers, and highlight some of the risks associated with the use ...

In a lawsuit he described as “[s]adly . . . historic,” Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal sued Health Net of Connecticut, Inc. for allegedly failing to secure private patient medical records and financial information involving hundreds of thousands of Connecticut enrollees and promptly notify consumers endangered by the security breach.  The case marks the first action by a state attorney general under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”) Act to enforce provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”).  The suit also alleges a violation of Connecticut’s breach notification statute.

On January 1, 2010, two important state data security and privacy laws took effect in Nevada and New Hampshire.  The laws create new obligations for most companies that do business in Nevada and for health care providers and business associates in New Hampshire.

On November 9, 2009, Connecticut’s Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, announced an investigation of whether Blue Cross and Blue Shield (“BCBS”) violated Connecticut’s data breach notification law by waiting until two months after a data breach had occurred to notify affected Connecticut residents.  The data breach, which Attorney General Blumenthal called “one of the most sizable and significant in Connecticut’s history,” involved the theft of a laptop containing confidential unencrypted data from the car of a BCBS employee in late August.  BCBS notified affected Connecticut residents of the breach in late October.

On October 30, as reported by the Bureau of National Affairs (“BNA”), the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation stated that final amendments to its information security regulations had been filed with the Massachusetts Secretary of State.  The Standards for the Protection of Personal Information of Residents of the Commonwealth have been the subject of much commentary and a series of amendments as regulators seek to address concerns expressed by businesses over the stringent and specific nature of the regulations.  The most recent round of amendments was announced August 17, 2009.

On September 9, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine dismissed a lawsuit challenging the validity of the Act to Prevent Predatory Marketing Practices Against Minors (the “Act”), which is set to take effect on September 12, 2009.  The Act prohibits businesses from knowingly collecting or receiving a minor’s health-related information or personal information for marketing purposes without first obtaining verifiable parental consent.  Businesses are also prohibited from using any health-related information or personal information regarding a minor for ...

New Hampshire recently enacted legislation restricting the use and disclosure of protected health information (“PHI”). As of January 1, 2010, health care providers and their business associates will be obligated to notify affected individuals of disclosures of PHI that are allowed under federal law, but are prohibited under the New Hampshire statute.

The New Hampshire law requires health care providers and their business associates to (i) obtain authorization for the use or disclosure of PHI for “marketing” and (ii) offer individuals an opt-out opportunity for the use or disclosure of PHI for fundraising purposes. In addition, it prohibits the disclosure of PHI for marketing (even with an authorization) or fundraising by voice mail, unattended facsimile, or through other methods of communication that are not secure.

On August 17, 2009, Massachusetts announced revisions to its information security regulations and extended the deadline for compliance with those regulations.  In the press release announcing the revised regulations, the Undersecretary of the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation noted the concerns of small business leaders regarding the impact on their companies, stating that the updated regulations “feature a fair balance between consumer protections and business realities.”

On September 12, 2009, Maine’s Act to Prevent Predatory Marketing Practices Against Minors (the “Act”) will take effect.  The Act prohibits businesses from knowingly collecting or receiving a minor’s health-related information or personal information for marketing purposes without first obtaining verifiable parental consent.  Businesses are also prohibited from using any health-related information or personal information regarding a minor for the purpose of marketing a product or service to the minor.  Pursuant to the Act, the use of information in such a manner is a ...

July saw a flurry of activity involving data security breach notification laws. 

• On July 1, breach notification laws in Alaska and South Carolina went into effect.
• On July 9, Missouri became the 45th state to enact a data breach notification law. 
• On July 22, Senator Patrick Leahy reintroduced a comprehensive federal data security bill calling it one of his “highest legislative priorities.”
• On July 27, North Carolina amended its breach notification law to require notification of the state attorney general any time consumers are notified of a breach involving their personal information.  The amendment also included content requirements for the attorney general’s notice.

Kaiser Permanente Bellflower Hospital has again been penalized for failing to prevent unauthorized access to confidential patient information.  On July 16, 2009, the California Department of Public Health announced that it had levied administrative penalties totaling $187,500 on the hospital after it was determined that eight Kaiser employees had compromised the privacy of four patients' medical information.  On May 14, 2009, the same facility was fined $250,000 -- the maximum allowable penalty under the new state health privacy provisions that came into effect on January 1st -- for violations related to unauthorized employee access to the medical records of Nadya Suleman.  The latest fine included a $25,000 penalty for each of four patients whose medical records allegedly were breached, plus $17,500 per incident for five subsequent alleged breaches of those medical records after the first.

On July 1, 2009, new laws will take effect in Alaska and South Carolina that will require entities that have experienced data security breaches involving personal information to notify affected individuals of the breaches.  With these additions, a total of 44 states, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, will have active breach notification laws in place.  There are no breach notification laws in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico and South Dakota.

As of January 1, 2010, Nevada law will require businesses to use encryption when data storage devices that contain personal information are moved beyond the physical or logical controls of the business, in addition to continuing to require that personal information be encrypted if it is transferred outside the secure system of the business. The new law repeals the existing Nevada encryption law, which will remain in effect until January 1, 2010. (For more information on the existing Nevada encryption law, please see our previous Client Alert.) The new law also mandates compliance ...

On May 19, Maine Governor John Baldacci signed legislation limiting the time that breach notification may be delayed following a determination by law enforcement that providing notice will not compromise a criminal investigation. The provision, which will take effect 90 days after the close of the Legislature's 2009 session (scheduled to occur on June 17), will limit the permissible delay to seven business days.

Pursuant to Maine's current breach notification law, entities that become aware of a breach "shall conduct in good faith a reasonable and prompt investigation to ...

On May 14, 2009, the California Department of Public Health issued an Administrative Penalty Notice to the Kaiser Foundation Hospital — Bellflower for patient medical information privacy violations. Although the state did not identify the affected patient by name, the facts and circumstances described in the Notice correspond to the case of Nadya Suleman, the single mother of six who gave birth to octuplets at Bellflower in January 2009. The hospital was fined $250,000 for failure to prevent unlawful or unauthorized access to, or use or disclosure of, a patient’s medical ...