InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC testifies on privacy efforts
On April 18, FTC Chair Lina M. Khan and Commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce on the agency’s efforts to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition. The hearing addressed the agency’s 2024 budget request, as well as topics focused on rulemaking authority, junk fees, robocalls, fraud, and privacy initiatives, among others. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) delivered opening remarks, during which she cited the resignation of both Republican commissioners and criticized the agency’s “abuses of power.”
In a prepared statement, the commissioners provided an overview of the agency’s consumer protection work, including its initiatives to safeguard consumers’ privacy that take a multi-pronged approach focusing on health data, children and teens, and data security. The commissioners broadly discussed recent enforcement actions taken to protect sensitive health data and commented on FTC efforts to use the agency’s rulemaking authority to protect children in the marketplace (the FTC is currently reviewing the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act Rule to determine any necessary changes and is exploring how commercial surveillance may be fueling manipulative advertising practices targeted towards children and teens). They also flagged a recent data security action as an example of how the agency “is pivoting toward requiring restrictions on what data firms can collect and retain.” According to the testimony, the FTC engaged in 35 investigations, cases, and enforcement projects with foreign consumer, privacy, and criminal enforcement agencies during the last fiscal year. The commissioners also said the agency is currently reviewing comments received on a 2022 advance notice of proposed rulemaking (covered by InfoBytes here), which sought feedback on the widespread collection of consumers’ personal information as well as concerns relating to consumer data security and commercial surveillance. While the commissioners reiterated the agency’s strong support for federal privacy legislation, Chair Rodgers said the FTC voted on partisan lines “to act unilaterally” on its own set of rules.
New York AG releases guide for businesses to protect consumer’s personal information
On April 19, the New York attorney general released a data security guide to help businesses adopt effective data security measures for protecting state residents’ personal information. The guide outlines recommendations for preventing data breaches and securing personal information, and discusses recent data security failures. Recommendations include (i) implementing strong controls for secure authentication; (ii) encrypting sensitive customer information; (iii) ensuring third-party vendors use appropriate, reasonable data security measures to safeguard customer information; (iv) maintaining inventories of assets and locations that contain customer information; (v) implementing effective safeguards to prevent “credential stuffing” attacks where usernames and passwords stolen from other online services are used in an attempt to log in to a customer’s online account; and (vi) notifying customers quickly and accurately when a data breach occurs. The guide is drawn from the AG’s experience in investigating and prosecuting data breaches.
Fed governor outlines CBDC risks
On April 18, Federal Reserve Governor Michelle W. Bowman cautioned that the risks of creating a U.S. central bank digital currency (CBDC) may outweigh the benefits for consumers. Bowman said the Fed continues to engage in exploratory work to understand how a CBDC could potentially improve payment speeds or better financial inclusion, and noted that the agency is also trying to understand how new potential forms of money like CBDCs and other digital assets could play a larger role in the economy. In prepared remarks delivered before Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business Psaros Center for Financial Markets and Policy, Bowman raised several policy considerations relating to privacy, interoperability and innovation, and the potential for “unintended effects” on the banking system should a CBDC be adopted. She also commented that due to the upcoming rollout of the agency’s FedNow Service in July (covered by InfoBytes here), real-time retail payments will happen without the introduction of a CBDC. With respect to privacy, Bowman cautioned that any CBDC “must ensure consumer data privacy protections embedded in today’s payment systems continue and are extended into future systems.” She added that “[i]n thinking about the implications of CBDC and privacy, we must also consider the central role that money plays in our daily lives, and the risk that a CBDC would provide not only a window into, but potentially an impediment to, the freedom Americans enjoy in choosing how money and resources are used and invested.”
Iowa becomes sixth state to enact comprehensive privacy legislation
On March 28, the Iowa governor signed SF 262, establishing a framework for controlling and processing consumers’ personal data in the state. Iowa is now the sixth state in the nation to enact comprehensive consumer privacy measures, following California, Colorado, Connecticut, Virginia, and Utah (covered by Special Alerts here and here and InfoBytes here, here, and here).
- Consumer rights. Iowa consumers will have the right to, among other things, (i) confirm whether their personal data is being processed and access their data; (ii) delete their data; (iii) obtain a copy of their personal data processed by a controller (“except as to personal data that is defined as personal information pursuant to section 715C.1 that is subject to security breach protection”); and (iv) opt out of the sale of their data.
- Controller responsibilities. The Act requires controllers—the persons that determine the purpose and means of processing personal data—to respond to consumers’ requests free of charge within 90 days (the response period may be extended an additional 45 days under extenuating circumstances). A controller must also provide a consumer, without undue delay, of its justification should it decline to take action regarding the consumer’s request, as well as instructions for appealing the decision. Controllers are also required to implement reasonable data security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and accessibility of personal data, and must not process collected sensitive data without notifying the consumer and allowing for the opportunity to opt out of such processing (or in the case of data involving a minor, without processing such data in accordance with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act). Controllers may not violate state and federal laws that prohibit discriminatory practices when processing personal data and may not discriminate against a consumer for exercising any of the provided consumer rights. Contacts that purport or waive or limit consumer rights shall be deemed void and unenforceable.
- Disclosures. Controllers are required to provide consumers “a reasonably accessible, clear, and meaningful privacy notice” that outlines the categories of personal data to be processed, the purpose for processing the data, and how consumers may submit requests to exercise their personal rights (a controller may not require a consumer to create a new account to exercise consumer rights). The privacy notice must also outline the categories of data that may be shared with third parties, as well as the categories of applicable third parties, and clearly disclose when personal data is being sold or used in targeted advertising to allow a consumer the right to opt out of such activity.
- Processor duties. Processors shall help controllers fulfill their obligations under the Act. A contract established between a controller and a processor will “govern the processor’s data processing procedures with respect to processing performed on behalf of the controller,” and must “clearly set forth instructions for processing personal data, the nature and purpose of processing, the type of data subject to processing, the duration of processing, and the rights and duties of both parties.”
- Exemptions and limitations. The Act also outlines various processing exemptions, including those related to pseudonymous data, and addresses certain actions that a controller or processor is able to take with respect to complying with federal, state, or local laws, investigations, or law enforcement agency inquiries, among others. The Act also limits the collection of personal data to what is adequate, relevant and necessary in relation to the purposes for which such data is processed, and requires controllers to implement data security protection practices.
- Enforcement. Although the Act explicitly prohibits its use as a basis for a private right of action, it does grant the state attorney general exclusive authority to enforce the law. Additionally, upon discovering a potential violation of the Act, the attorney general must give the controller or processor written notice and 90 days to cure the alleged violation before the attorney general can file suit. Should the controller or processor continue to violate the Act, the attorney general may seek an injunction and civil penalties of up to $7,500 for each violation.
The Act takes effect January 1, 2025.
Utah amends disclosure requirements for data breaches
On March 23, the Utah governor signed SB 127, which, among other things, requires additional disclosure requirements for system security breaches and creates the Utah Cyber Center. For example, it mandates additional notice requirements to the office of the Utah attorney general (AG) and the Utah Cyber Center where an investigation “reveals that the misuse of personal information relating to 500 or more Utah residents, for identity theft or fraud purposes, has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur.” If the investigation reveals the misuse of personal information relating to 1,000 or more Utah residents, the notification must also be sent “to each consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis.”
The Utah Cyber Center will be responsible for, among other things, developing a statewide strategic cybersecurity plan for executive branches and other governmental agencies; identifying, analyzing, and mitigating cyber threats and vulnerabilities; coordinating cybersecurity resilience planning; providing cybersecurity incident response capabilities; developing incident response plans to coordinate federal, state, local, and private sector activities; and developing and promoting cybersecurity best practices.
The amendments are effective 60 days follow adjournment of the legislature.
FCC regulations target scam robotexts
On March 16, the FCC adopted its first regulations specifically targeting scam text messages sent to consumers. Recognizing that robotexts are generally covered under the TCPA’s limits against unwanted calls to mobile phones, the FCC stated that the new regulations will require mobile service providers to block certain robotexts that appear to be coming from phone numbers that are unlikely to transmit text messages, including invalid, unallocated, or unused numbers, as well as “numbers that the subscriber to the number has self-identified as never sending text messages, and numbers that government agencies and other well-known entities identify as not used for texting.” Mobile service providers will also be required “to establish a point of contact for text senders, or have providers require their aggregator partners or blocking contractors to establish such a point of contact, which senders can use to inquire about blocked texts.”
The FCC’s report and order also include a further notice of proposed rulemaking, which seeks to implement additional protections to further prevent illegal text messages. The proposal would “require terminating providers to block texts from a sender after they are on notice from the Commission that the sender is sending illegal texts, to extend the National Do-Not-Call Registry’s protections to text messages, and to ban the practice of marketers purporting to have written consent for numerous parties to contact a consumer, based on one consent.”
Comments are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
SEC proposes new cybersecurity requirements
On March 15, a divided SEC issued several proposed amendments to the agency’s cybersecurity-related rules.
The first is a proposed rule that would implement cybersecurity requirements for participants in the securities market, including broker-dealers, clearing agencies, and major security-based swap participants, among others. (See also SEC press release and fact sheet.) Among other things, the proposed rule would require all market entities to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to address cybersecurity risks. Market participants would also be required to review the design and effectiveness of their cybersecurity policies and procedures at least once a year, and immediately provide the SEC written electronic notice of a significant cybersecurity incident should the participant have a reasonable basis to conclude that the incident had occurred or is occurring. Certain market entities would also be required to make public disclosures addressing cybersecurity risks and significant cybersecurity incidents to improve transparency. The SEC explained that the “interconnectedness of [m]arket [e]ntities increases the risk that a significant cybersecurity incident can simultaneously impact multiple [m]arket [e]tities causing systemic harm to the U.S. securities markets.”
The second proposed rule would amend Regulation S-P to enhance the protection of customer information and provide a federal minimum standard for data breach notifications. Regulation S-P requires broker-dealers, investment companies, and registered investment advisers to implement written policies and procedures for safeguarding customer records and information. The regulation also imposes requirements for proper disposal of consumer report information, implements privacy notice and opt-out provisions, and requires covered institutions to tell customers how their financial information is used. (See also SEC press release and fact sheet.) Under the proposed rule, covered institutions would be required to adopt an incident response program to address unauthorized access or use of customer information. Covered institutions would also be required to notify customers affected by certain types of data breaches that may expose them to identity theft or other harm by providing “notice as soon as soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days after the covered institution becomes aware that an incident involving unauthorized access to or use of customer information has occurred or is reasonably likely to have occurred.” The proposed rule would also “extend the protections of the safeguards and disposal rules to both nonpublic personal information that a covered institution collects about its own customers and to nonpublic personal information that a covered institution receives about customers of other financial institutions.” Modifications to provisions related to registered transfer agents are also proposed.
Comments on both proposed rules are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Additionally, the SEC announced it has reopened the comment period on proposed cybersecurity risk management rules and amendments for registered investment advisers and funds. Under the proposed rules, advisers and funds would be required to adopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to address cybersecurity risks that could harm advisory clients and fund investors. The proposed rules also laid out additional requirements relating to the disclosure of cybersecurity risks and significant cybersecurity incidents as well as filing and recordkeeping. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The SEC reopened the comment period for an additional 60 days.
In voting against the proposed rules, Commission Hester M. Pierce questioned, among other things, whether the amendments would create overlapping requirements for financial firms subject to state data breach laws that have customer notification provisions, some of which conflict with the SEC’s proposals. Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda also raised concerns as to how the three proposals interact with each other. He cautioned that the “lack of an integrated regulatory structure may even weaken cybersecurity protection by diverting attention to satisfy multiple overlapping regulatory regimes rather than focusing on the real threat of cyber intrusions and other malfeasance.”
CFPB and NLRB to share info on employer-driven debt practices and illegal surveillance
On March 7, the CFPB and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) entered into an information sharing agreement to create a formal partnership for addressing unlawful practices involving employer surveillance and employer driven debt. The agencies stressed in the joint announcement that their Memorandum of Understanding will help identify and end employer practices that cause workers to incur debt by forcing them to pay for employer-mandated training or equipment that they might not need, or that surveil workers and sell their personal data to financial institutions, insurers, and other employers. These actions, the agencies said, may violate the FCRA and other consumer financial protection laws. As previously covered by InfoBytes, last June the Bureau launched an inquiry into employer-driven debt practices. The request for information focused on debt obligations incurred by consumers in the context of an employment or independent contractor arrangement, and sought information on “prevalence, pricing and other terms of the obligations, disclosures, dispute resolution, and the servicing and collection of these debts.”
“Many workers discover that getting a job can mean piling up debt instead of making a living,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in the announcement. “Information sharing with the [NLRB] will support our efforts to end debt traps that stop workers from leaving one job for another.” NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo agreed, adding that as the “economy, industries and workplaces continue to change, we are excited to work with CFPB to strengthen our whole-of-government approach and ensure that employers obey the law and workers are able to fully and freely exercise their rights without interference or adverse consequences.”
House committees move forward on data privacy
On March 1, the House Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce, a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, held a hearing entitled “Promoting U.S. Innovation and Individual Liberty through a National Standard for Data Privacy” to continue discussions on the need for comprehensive federal privacy legislation. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) delivered opening remarks, commenting that discussions during the hearing will build upon the bipartisan American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA), which advanced through the committee last July by a vote of 53-2. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the ADPPA (see H.R. 8152) was sent to the House floor during the last Congressional session, but never came up for a full chamber vote. The bill has not been reintroduced yet.
A subcommittee memo highlighted that absent a comprehensive federal standard, “there are insufficient limits to what types of data companies may collect, process, and transfer.” The subcommittee flagged the data broker industry as an example of where there are limited restrictions or oversight to prevent the creation of consumer profiles that link sensitive data to individuals. Other areas of importance noted by the subcommittee relate to data security protections, data minimization requirements, digital advertising, and privacy enhancing technologies. The subcommittee heard from witnesses who agreed that a comprehensive privacy framework would benefit consumers.
One of the witnesses commented in prepared remarks that preemption is key, calling the current patchwork of state laws confusing and costly to businesses and consumers. “Consumers need a strong and consistent law to protect them across jurisdictions and market sectors, and to clarify what privacy rights they should expect and demand as they navigate the marketplace,” the witness said. The witness also stated that the FTC is currently relying on outdated law, noting that while Section 5 of the FTC Act is frequently used, “virtually all of the FTC’s privacy and data security cases are settlements. That means that many of the legal theories advanced, as well as the remedies obtained, have never been tested in court.”
In advance of the hearing, the California governor, the California attorney general, and the California Privacy Protection Agency sent a joint letter opposing preemption language contained in H.R. 8152. “[B]y prohibiting states from adopting, maintaining, enforcing, or continuing in effect any law covered by the legislation, [the ADPPA] would eliminate existing protections for residents in California and sister states,” the letter warned. The letter asked Congress “to set the floor and not the ceiling in any federal privacy law” and “allow states to provide additional protections in response to changing technology and data privacy protection practices.”
Separately, at the end of February, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Patrick McHenry (R-NC) introduced the Data Privacy Act of 2023 (see H.R. 1165). The bill moved out of committee by a 26-21 vote, and now goes to the full House for consideration. Among other things, the bill would modernize the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to better align the statute with the evolving technological landscape. The bill would also ensure consumers understand how their data is being collected and used and grant consumers power to opt-out of the collection of their data and request that their data be deleted at any time. Additional provisions are intended to protect against the misuse or overuse of consumers’ personal data and impose disclosure requirements relating to data collection methods, how data is used and who it is shared with, data retention policies, and informed choice. The bill is designed to provide consistency across the country to reduce compliance burdens, McHenry said.
4th Circuit remands privacy suit to state court
On February 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a proposed class action over website login procedures belongs in state court. Plaintiff alleged that after a nonparty credit reporting agency experienced a data breach, it used the defendant subsidiary’s website to inform customers whether their personal data had been compromised. Because the defendant’s website required the plaintiff to enter six digits of his Social Security number to access the information, the plaintiff alleged violations of South Carolina’s Financial Identity Fraud and Identity Theft Protection Act and the state’s common-law right to privacy. Under the state statute, companies are prohibited from requiring consumers to use six digits or more of their Social Security number to access a website unless a password, a unique personal identification number, or another form of authentication is also required. According to the plaintiff, the defendant’s website did not include this requirement.
The defendant moved the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act and requested that the case be dismissed. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in federal court, as well as a motion asking the district court to first determine whether it had subject matter jurisdiction, given the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, which clarified the type of concrete injury necessary to establish Article III standing (covered by InfoBytes here). Although the district court held that the plaintiff had alleged “an intangible concrete harm in the manner of an invasion of privacy,” which it said was enough to give it subject-matter jurisdiction “at this early stage of the case,” it dismissed the case after determining the plaintiff had not plausibly stated a claim.
In reversing and remanding the action, the 4th Circuit found that the plaintiff alleged only a bare statutory violation and had not pled a concrete injury sufficient to confer Article III standing in federal court. The appellate court vacated the district court’s decision to dismiss the case and ordered the district court to remand the case to state court. The 4th Circuit took the position that an intangible harm, such as a plaintiff “enduring a statutory violation” is insufficient to confer standing unless there is a separate harm “or a materially increased risk of another harm” associated with the violation. “[Plaintiff] hasn’t alleged—even in a speculative or conclusory fashion—that entering six digits of his SSN on [defendant’s] website has somehow raised his risk of identity theft,” the 4th Circuit said. In conclusion, the 4th Circuit wrote: “We offer no opinion about whether the alleged facts state a claim under the Act. Absent Article III jurisdiction, that’s a question for [plaintiff] to take up in state court.”