InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court partially certifies data breach suit
On May 3, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part certification of eight class actions against a hotel corporation (defendant) alleging that it misled consumers regarding a major breach of customers’ personal information. According to the opinion, the plaintiffs filed suit after allegedly learning that the defendant took more than four years to discover the breach and took nearly three months to notify customers of their exposed information. The defendant discovered the breach in September 2018 when a consulting company contracted, to provide data security services reported an anomaly pertaining to a guest information database. In total, the breach impacted approximately 133.7 million guest records associated with the U.S., including an estimated 47.7 million records associated with the bellwether states. The defendant argued that certification should be denied because not all of the class members demonstrated that they suffered an injury, which the court rejected, noting that the plaintiffs do not need to demonstrate that every class member has standing at the class certification stage. The size of the certified classes based on an overpayment theory was decreased, because the court agreed with the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs were too broad in seeking to include all customers who were affected by the breach, rather than those who only “bore the economic burden.” The court also declined to certify one class seeking only injunctive or declaratory relief, stating that “[w]ithout any direction as to the nature of the injunction sought, besides a request for further discovery, plaintiffs’ motion goes no further than requesting that defendants discontinue their current practices with respect to the [personally identifiable information] at issue.”
9th Circuit: Data release did not violate defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights
On April 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that limited digital data uncovered online that was not collected at the behest of the government did not violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable government searches and seizures. According to the opinion, the defendant, who was convicted of child exploitation, argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when two electronic service providers (ESPs) investigated his accounts without a warrant and reported the evidence of child sexual exploitation. He further maintained that evidence seized upon his arrest should have been suppressed because the ESPs were “acting as government agents when they searched his online accounts,” and that “he had a right to privacy in his digital data and that the government’s preservation requests and subpoenas, submitted without a warrant, violated the Fourth Amendment.”
The 9th Circuit disagreed, concluding first that the federal Stored Communications Act and the Protect Our Children Act “transformed the ESPs’ searches into governmental action” and “that the government was sufficiently involved in the ESPs’ searches of the defendant’s accounts to trigger Fourth Amendment protection.” The appellate court also determined that the government’s preservation requests for the private communications did not amount to unreasonable seizure and that “the defendant did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the limited digital data sought in the government’s subpoenas, where the subpoenas did not request any communication content from the defendant’s accounts and the government did not receive any such content in response to the subpoenas.” Moreover, the 9th Circuit stated that the defendant agreed to terms of use that granted the ESPs’ contractual rights under agreed upon privacy policies “to investigate, prevent, or take action regarding illegal activities,” and consented to the ESPs honoring of preservation requests from law enforcement.
District Court approves final class action privacy settlement
On April 29, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York granted final approval of a class action settlement resolving privacy and data security allegations against a health insurance company and several related health insurance entities (collectively, “defendants”). According to the plaintiffs’ memorandum of support, the plaintiff filed suit in 2015, alleging that the defendants compromised the personal identifying information, Social Security numbers, and medical and financial data of approximately 9.3 million policy holders from a 2013 data breach. After the security incident was announced, 14 lawsuits were filed, which were consolidated with this case. Under the terms of the final settlement, the defendants are required to implement information security and compliance measures, and comprehensively address security risks. The settlement also includes $3.6 million in attorneys’ fees and $700,000 in litigation costs. Class representatives will be awarded service awards that range between $1,000-$7,500 each, which will total approximately $95,500.
EU Court of Justice rules consumer protection agencies can sue companies for GDPR violations
On April 28, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued an opinion concluding that consumer protection associations are permitted to bring representative actions against infringements of personal data protection “independently of the specific infringement of a data subject’s right to the protection of his or her personal data and in the absence of a mandate to that effect.” According to the judgment, Germany’s Federal Union of Consumer Organisations and Associations brought an action for an injunction against a global social media company’s Ireland division for allegedly infringing on General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules governing the protection of personal data, the combat of unfair commercial practices, and consumer protection when offering users free games provided by third parties. Germany’s Federal Court of Justice called into question whether a consumer protection association has standing to bring proceedings in the civil courts against infringements of the GDPR without obtaining a mandate from users whose data was misused. Germany’s Federal Court of Justice also observed that the GDPR could be inferred to read that “it is principally for the supervisory authorities to verify the application of the provisions of that regulation.”
In its ruling, CJEU concluded that consumer protection associations in the EU can bring representative actions against the social media company for alleged violations of the GDPR, writing that the GDPR “does not preclude national legislation which allows a consumer protection association to bring legal proceedings, in the absence of a mandate conferred on it for that purpose and independently of the infringement of specific rights of the data subjects, against the person allegedly responsible for an infringement of the laws protecting personal data . . . where the data processing concerned is liable to affect the rights that identified or identifiable natural persons derive from that regulation.” Permitting associations to bring representative actions is “consistent with the objective pursued by the GDPR . . . in particular, ensuring a high level of protection of personal data,” CJEU stated.
Connecticut legislature passes consumer data privacy bill
Recently, the Connecticut legislature passed SB 6, which would enact provisions related to consumer data privacy and online monitoring. Highlights of the bill include:
- Applicability. The bill will apply to a controller that conducts business in the state or produces products or services for consumer residents that, during the preceding calendar year, “controlled or processed the personal data of not less than seventy-five thousand consumers, excluding personal data controlled or processed solely for the purpose of completing a payment transaction” or “controlled or processed the personal data of not less than twenty-five thousand consumers and derived more than twenty-five per cent of their gross revenue from the sale of personal data.” Certain entities and types of data are exempt from the bill’s requirements, including state governmental entities; nonprofits; higher education institutes; national security associations registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; financial institutions or data subject to federal privacy disclosure requirements; hospitals; certain types of health information subject to federal health privacy laws; consumer reporting agencies, furnishers, and consumer report users of information involving personal data bearing on a consumer’s credit; personal data regulated by certain federal regulations; and air carriers. Additionally, a controller and processor will be considered to be in compliance with the bill’s parental consent obligations provided it complies with verifiable parental consent mechanisms under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.
- Consumer rights. Under the bill, consumers will be able to, among other things, (i) confirm whether their personal data is being processed and access their data; (ii) correct inaccuracies; (iii) delete their data; (iv) obtain a copy of personal data processed by a controller; and (v) opt out of the processing of their data for targeted advertising, the sale of their data, or profiling to assist solely automated decisions. A consumer may designate another person to serve as his or her authorized agent to opt out of the processing of such consumer’s personal data.
- Controllers’ and processors’ responsibilities. Under the bill, controllers will be responsible for responding to consumers’ requests within 45 days (an additional 45-day extension may be requested under certain circumstances). Responses to consumers’ requests must be provided free of charge, unless the request is “manifestly unfounded, excessive or repetitive,” in which case a controller may charge a reasonable administrative fee or decline to act on the request (a controller bears the burden of explaining the denial and must also establish an appeals process, including a method through which a consumer may submit a complaint to the state attorney general). Among other things, controllers must “[l]imit the collection of personal data to what is adequate, relevant and reasonably necessary in relation to the purposes for which such data is processed, as disclosed to the consumer” and are required to implement data security protection practices “appropriate to the volume and nature of the personal data at issue” and conduct data protection assessments for processing activities that present a heightened risk of harm to consumers. Controllers may not process personal data in violation of federal and state laws that prohibit unlawful discrimination against consumers and must provide an effective mechanism for consumers to revoke consent that is at least as easy as the method used to provide consent. Controllers must cease processing data within 15 days of receiving a revocation request. The bill also requires controllers to provide privacy notices to consumers disclosing certain information regarding data collection and sharing practices (including sharing with third parties), and if the controller sells a consumer’s personal data to third parties or engages in targeted advertising, the controller must disclose how consumers may exercise their rights under the bill. Controllers also will be prohibited from processing sensitive personal data without first presenting a consumer with the opportunity to opt out. The bill further specifies requirements for processing de-identified data or pseudonymous data. Data processors must adhere to a controller’s instructions and enter into contracts with clearly specified instructions for processing personal data.
- Private right of action and state attorney general enforcement. The bill explicitly prohibits a private right of action. Instead, it grants the state attorney general exclusive authority to enforce the law. The attorney general may also require a controller to disclose any data protection assessments relevant to an investigation. A violation of the bill’s provisions will constitute an unfair trade practice.
- Right to cure. Upon discovering a potential violation of the bill, the attorney general (during the period beginning July 1, 2023 through December 31, 2024) must provide a controller or processor written notice of violation. The controller or processor then has 60 days to cure the alleged violation before the attorney general can file suit. Beginning on January 1, 2025, the attorney general, when determining whether to provide a controller or processor the opportunity to cure an alleged violation, may consider the number of violations, the controller/processor’s size and complexity, the nature and extent of the processing activities, the substantial likelihood of public injury, and the safety of persons or property.
If enacted in its current form, the bill would take effect July 1, 2023.
4th Circuit will not revive investors’ data breach case
On April 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a securities suit against a hotel corporation (defendant) alleging that they misled the plaintiffs regarding data vulnerabilities connected to a major breach of customers’ personal information. According to the opinion, two years after merging with another hospitality corporation, the defendant “learned that malware had impacted approximately 500 million guest records in the [hospitality corporation’s] guest reservation database.” An investor filed a putative class action against the defendant and nine of its officers and directors, alleging that its failure to disclose severe vulnerabilities in the hospitality corporation’s IT systems rendered 73 different public statements false or misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and SEC Rule 10b-5. The district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice and concluded that the plaintiffs “‘failed to adequately allege a false or misleading statement or omission, a strong inference of scienter, and loss causation,’ which doomed the claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 as well as the secondary liability claim [under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act].” The investor appealed, dropping its challenge to 55 of the statements but maintaining its challenge to the other 18.
On appeal, the 4th Circuit agreed with the district court that the defendant’s statements about the importance of cybersecurity were not misleading with respect to the quality of its cybersecurity efforts. The appellate court found that “[t]he ‘basic problem’ with the complaint on this point is that ‘the facts it alleges do not contradict [the defendant’s] public disclosures,’” and that reiterating the “basic truth” that data integrity is important does not mislead investors or create a false impression. The appellate court also noted that the complaint “concedes that [the defendant] devoted resources and took steps to strengthen the security of hospitality corporation’s systems,” and that the company included “such sweeping caveats that no reasonable investor could have been misled by them.” The appellate court concluded that the defendant “certainly could have provided more information to the public about its experience with or vulnerability to cyberattacks, but the federal securities laws did not require it to do so.”
District Court dismisses state law claims concerning scanned email allegations
On April 26, the U.S District Court for the Northern District of California granted a defendant tech company’s motion for reconsideration to dismiss a plaintiffs’ Washington Privacy Act (WPA) claims that it shared customer data with third parties without first obtaining consent. According to the amended complaint, the defendant allegedly misrepresented its privacy and security practices in violation of federal and state law by, among other things, sharing customer data with unauthorized third parties (some of which suffered data breaches), using customer data to develop products and services to sell to other companies, and falsely promising it complied with privacy and confidentiality standards. Plaintiffs alleged the company scanned 400 billion customer emails to obtain insights for its API, which it then sold to others.
In its prior ruling, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ Wiretap Act and Stored Communications Act claims but allowed the WPA claims to proceed. The defendant then filed a motion for partial reconsideration, arguing that the WPA claim is also premised on the same scanned email theory as with the other two claims that were already dismissed. The court agreed that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege that their emails were scanned and dismissed the WPA claims without leave to amend because the “interception or disclosure of a communication” was necessary “in order for the conduct to be actionable.”
District Court allows state claims concerning the use of individuals’ likenesses in online ads to proceed
On April 19, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss in a putative class action alleging a California-based website operator violated various Ohio, Indiana, and California state laws by appropriating individuals’ names and likenesses and using this information in online teaser profile advertisements. Plaintiffs contended that the “teasers” violated their rights of publicity, and that memberships give users access to data including location history, family members, court records, employment information, and more. Plaintiffs further stated that “they ‘did not consent to the commercial use of their personal information and personas to promote subscriptions to a website with which they have no relationship.’” Defendant moved to dismiss on numerous grounds, including lack of standing.
In denying the motion to dismiss, the court ruled that plaintiffs have Article III standing to sue and that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cognizable injury in “that their names, likenesses, and related information have commercial value and were being used for a commercial purpose.” The court also reviewed the adequacy of pleadings with respect to the alleged state violations and concluded, among other things, that the defendant’s teasers “are not subject to statutory exceptions for newsworthiness or public interest information.” As to the defendant’s alleged violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), the court considered whether the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) “immunizes [defendant’s] behavior from UCL liability.” According to the defendant, the CCPA generally obligates businesses to notify California residents when personal information is being used, it also “contains an express exemption for the use of publicly available data.” Because this conduct is allegedly permitted by the CCPA, the defendant argued, it cannot violate the UCL. The court disagreed, writing that “all that these provisions of the CCPA do are exempt publicly available data from special notification and disclosure rules that the statute itself imposes on companies that collect Californians’ data. . . . They do not expressly or impliedly set aside privacy-based tort claims or related UCL claims.”
District Court approves final $85 million class action privacy settlement despite objections
On April 21, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval of an $85 million class action settlement resolving privacy and data security allegations against a video conferencing provider. As previously covered by InfoBytes, consolidated class members claimed the company violated several California laws, including invasion of privacy, the “unlawful” and “unfair” prongs under the Unfair Competition Law, implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, among others. According to the more than 150 million class members (defined as individuals who “registered, used, opened or downloaded the [company’s] [m]eetings [a]pplication”), the company unlawfully shared their personal data with unauthorized third parties, failed to prevent unwanted and unauthorized meeting disruptions, and misrepresented the strength of its end-to-end encryption measures. Under the terms of the final settlement, the company will establish an $85 million fund to pay valid claims, fees and expenses, service payments, and taxes, and will make several major changes to its practices to “improve meeting security, bolster privacy disclosures, and safeguard consumer data.” Among other things, the settlement stipulates that the company will “provide in-meeting notifications to make it easier for users to understand who can see, save and share [their] information and content by alerting users when a meeting host or another participant uses a third-party application during a meeting.” Additionally, the company will educate users about available security features and ensure its privacy statement discloses the ability of users to share user data with third parties through integrated third-party software, record meetings, and/or transcribe meetings.
The court considered several objections raised by certain class members, including concerns argued on behalf of a subclass of users who used the meeting application “as part of a business that was legally or contractually required to maintain client confidentiality as part of the services the business provided.” According to these objectors, the individual payment amounts are inadequate for individuals who held sensitive meetings. The court countered that the objectors’ claims did not differ from other class members and that the recovery is intended to cover users who did not receive the benefit of their bargain with the company, and not for “special harm arising from a duty to maintain client confidentiality.”
District Court denies class cert in data breach suit
On April 20, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in a lawsuit alleging a defendant hotel and restaurant group breached its contract when a data breach exposed the plaintiffs’ credit card account numbers and other private information. Plaintiffs alleged the defendant contracted with a third-party reservation site, which required consumers to provide payment card information and other personally identifying information (PII). The plaintiffs contended that during the data breach, hackers accessed customer data, and argued that “had [the third party] ‘employed multiple levels of authentication,’ rather than ‘single factor authorization,’ the ‘hacker would not . . . have been able to access the system.” Plaintiffs further claimed that the defendant served as the third party’s agent and was therefore responsible for its conduct.
In declining to certify the class, the court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to successfully allege any of their three claims on behalf of the class. The court reviewed the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims, which alleged that the defendant promised to safeguard class members’ PII but failed to provide notice on its website that a third party was processing the payment information. According to the court, the plaintiffs could not show that all of the proposed class members would have believed they were providing their information to the defendant because the defendant’s “Book Now” button sent the user to the third party’s website and the defendant’s privacy policy disclosed its use of third party websites. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ assertion that the defendant disclosed personal information in violation of California Civil Code because the information was hacked rather than disclosed by either the defendant or the third party. With respect to the plaintiffs’ Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims, the plaintiffs argued that the defendant’s statements about protective measures were misleading because the third party did not employ multi-layer authentication. The court concluded that class treatment of those claims was improper as it could not determine whether the practice was misleading for the entire class as the question is dependent on whether class members believed they were providing PII to the defendant or to the third party.