Cybersecurity

Subscribe to Cybersecurity via RSS

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently issued a mixed ruling on D-Link Systems’ motion to dismiss in FTC v. D-Link Sys., Inc.1 D-Link sells routers and Internet protocol (IP) cameras that it markets as having good data security, including “the latest wireless security features to help prevent unauthorized access” and “the best possible encryption.”2 The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against D-Link, alleging that the company’s products were in fact subject to “widely known and reasonably foreseeable risks of unauthorized access,” and that, among other things, D-Link failed to deploy “free software, available since at least 2008, to secure users’ mobile app login credentials.”3 The complaint alleges five claims for deceptive marketing practices and one count for unfair practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
Continue Reading Northern District of California Drops FTC Unfairness Claim Against D-Link Systems

The biggest question looming over every class-action case filed in response to a data breach is: Will the plaintiffs have standing? The answer has divided courts in recent cases across the country.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins that Congress could not confer standing to plaintiffs based on a violation of a statute alone.1 Instead, the Court held that, even if a statute has been violated, plaintiffs must prove they have an injury-in-fact and that the injury is both concrete and particularized. Spokeo added a new layer of complexity in pleading standing in data breach cases. Previously, the Supreme Court held in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA that “conjectural” or “hypothetical” injuries were insufficient to confer standing and that harm must be “certainly impending.”2 What Spokeo and Clapper mean in practice for data-breach cases is far from settled.Continue Reading Class Action Standing and Data Breaches: When Is There an Injury-in-Fact?

On September 5, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it and 32 state attorneys general had settled charges with Lenovo regarding the company’s practice of pre-loading software on its laptops that compromised consumers’…
Continue Reading Lenovo Settles FTC Charges Regarding Pre-Installed Software That Compromised Consumers’ Cybersecurity and Privacy

On August 15, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it had reached an agreement with Uber Technologies to settle allegations that the ride-sharing company had deceived consumers by failing to live up to its privacy and data security promises.1 Specifically, the FTC levied two deception counts against Uber: (1) that the company had failed to consistently monitor and audit internal access to consumers’ personal information, despite public promises to do so; and (2) that the company had failed to provide reasonable security for consumers’ personal information stored in its databases, despite its security promises. Under the resulting proposed consent order, Uber will be prohibited from misrepresenting how it monitors or audits internal access to consumers’ personal information and how it protects and secures that data. Uber will also be required to implement a comprehensive privacy program that will be subject to independent biennial audits for the next 20 years, and will need to comply with the standard set of consent order recordkeeping and compliance reporting and monitoring requirements.
Continue Reading Key New Takeaways from Uber’s Privacy and Data Security Settlement with the FTC

On July 3, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it had settled charges that defendants Blue Global, an operator of dozens of consumer loan lead generation websites, and its founder and CEO, Christopher Kay, violated the FTC Act. The FTC alleges that the defendants had, among other practices, misled consumers about Blue Global’s data security practices and shared information characterized by the FTC as consumers’ “sensitive personal information” with a variety of potential bidders after promising to disclose such information only to “trusted lending partners” meeting specified criteria. As part of the settlement, the defendants are subject to a judgment for more than $104 million,1 must maintain stringent oversight of third-party recipients of consumers’ sensitive personal information, and are enjoined from disclosing a consumer’s sensitive personal information other than when specified conditions, including having obtained that consumer’s express, informed consent, are met.
Continue Reading FTC Cracks Down on Lead Generation Company’s Indiscriminate Sharing of Consumers’ Sensitive Data