ARTICLE
22 September 2021

FTC Warns Digital Health Industry To Comply With Its Breach Notification Rule

SM
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Contributor

Businesses turn to Sheppard to deliver sophisticated counsel to help clients move ahead. With more than 1,200 lawyers located in 16 offices worldwide, our client-centered approach is grounded in nearly a century of building enduring relationships on trust and collaboration. Our broad and diversified practices serve global clients—from startups to Fortune 500 companies—at every stage of the business cycle, including high-stakes litigation, complex transactions, sophisticated financings and regulatory issues. With leading edge technologies and innovation behind our team, we pride ourselves on being a strategic partner to our clients.
The use of apps, wearables, and other devices used to track health and wellness data have continued to rise.
United States Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP are most popular:
  • within Cannabis & Hemp and Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring topic(s)

The use of apps, wearables, and other devices used to track health and wellness data have continued to rise. The FTC again signaled its focus on this growing industry in a statement on the scope of the Health Breach Notification Rule. In the statement, the FTC called out specific types of apps and trackers that it views as having notification obligations under this rule.

The rule is intended to address those entities that collect health information, but are not covered by HIPAA. Under the rule, vendors of personal health records (PHR) and PHR-related entities must notify consumers, the FTC, and, in some cases, the media, if there has been a breach of unsecured identifiable health information. The statement provides guidance on which health-related apps are subject to the rule, clarifying that newer health apps and fitness trackers would be covered under the rule. Based on this statement, the FTC views developers of health apps or connected devices to be a "health care provider" because it "furnishes health care services of supplies." As an example, the FTC said a blood sugar monitoring app drawing health information only from one source (e.g., a consumer's inputted blood sugar levels), but also taking non-health information from another source (e.g., dates from your phone's calendar), would be covered under the rule. The FTC also clarified that a "breach" includes not only incidents of unauthorized access, but sharing of covered information without an individua's authorization. In two different dissenting statements, Commissioners Wilson and Phillips generally argued that the FTC is broadly expanding the scope of key terms under the rule (PHR, "multiple source" and breach) and circumventing the rulemaking processes.

Putting it into Practice. The FTC has not enforced the Health Breach Notification Rule since it went into effect. However, this statement, coupled with statements in a more recent FTC enforcement action involving a digital health app, and other enforcement priorities suggests that enforcement is forthcoming. While many of these companies collecting "health" or "medical" information may have otherwise had notification obligations to individuals and/or state attorneys' general under state data breach notification laws, companies are reminded that they may also have notification obligations to the FTC, and in some cases, the media. Companies that don't comply with the Health Breach Notification Rule could be subject to up to $43,792 in monetary penalties per violation per day.

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.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More