We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
It's time for an updated version of our "Mintz
Matrix" – the Mintz Levin matrix of state data
security breach notification laws. We update this matrix quarterly,
or as developments dictate.
In this update, we call particular attention to changes in the
following states:
Texas – The amendment to the Texas
breach notification statute took effect September 1,
2012. We
previously blogged about these amendments, which could be
construed to now act as a 50-state breach notification statute.
It requires entities that conduct business in Texas to
provide notice to both affected Texas residents and to
non-residents if the non-resident lives in a state that does not
require notification of the security breach. As of today,
those states include Alabama, Kentucky, New Mexico and South
Dakota. The amendment also increased penalties for violations
to $100 per affected individual per day of failed or delayed
notification, up to $250,000 for a single breach.
Connecticut – The amended version of
Connecticut's data breach notification law (
previously blogged about here) adds a requirement to notify the
Connecticut Attorney General "not later than the time when
notice is provided to the resident." This amendment took
effect on October 1, 2012. Attorney General George
Jepsen's
Privacy Task Force has established an email address to
facilitate breach reporting at mailto:ag.breach@ct.gov. A link to
the email address and information regarding the new reporting
requirement is at the AG's
website.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The 2010 theft of an unencrypted laptop containing confidential health care information made front-page news in 2013, not because a huge number of patients were affected, but for the exact opposite reason.
Identity theft is a serious threat. In 2012, more than 12.6 million adults became victims of identity theft in the U.S.1 And the costs have been astronomical.
On April 22 Verizon released its 2013 Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR), which has since 2008 become a leading annual survey of data breaches, with participants across the globe.
Increasingly, privacy is a big concern in app development. California and other jurisdictions are ramping up enforcement efforts around existing privacy laws.
Understanding the complexities of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules is often a challenge for health care providers and consumers.
Any company that collects personal data from consumers should take proactive steps to have appropriate legal counsel review its data security practices, as well as its terms of service or privacy practices, to identify any potential problem areas.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) published on its website a series of factsheets designed to educate consumers unfamiliar with their rights under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’s (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules.
FTC On The Prowl, And Businesses Looking For Guidance On New COPPA Changes
