Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

The Connecticut Attorney General’s Office (“OAG”) has released a Report on the status of Connecticut’s Data Privacy Act (“CTDPA”), which took effect on July 1, 2023. The Report covers complaints, inquiries, and early enforcement activities under the CTDPA.

On June 2 and June 5, 2023, the Connecticut and Nevada state legislatures, respectively, voted in favor of sending legislation to their governors for signature that would impose restrictions, among others, on the processing of consumer health data, including geofencing provisions.  Nevada S.B. 370 was signed by Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo on June 16, 2023. These bills contain provisions similar to Washington’s My Health My Data Act and expand on protections in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and other privacy laws.

On March 6 and 15, 2023, both chambers of the Iowa Legislature unanimously voted to approve Senate File 262, which could make Iowa the sixth U.S. state to enact comprehensive privacy legislation. The bill is most similar to Utah’s comprehensive privacy law.

On October 13, 2022, the Interactive Advertising Bureau (“IAB”) released for public comment an updated version of its contractual framework and new U.S. State Signals (“Signals”) specifications to help the digital advertising industry comply with the comprehensive state privacy laws of California, Virginia, Colorado, Utah and Connecticut.

On May 10, 2022, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed An Act Concerning Personal Data Privacy and Online Monitoring, after the law was previously passed by the Connecticut General Assembly in April. Connecticut is now the fifth state to enact a consumer privacy law.

On October 1, 2021, Connecticut’s two new data security laws become effective. As we previously reported, the new laws modify Connecticut’s existing breach notification requirements and establish a safe harbor from certain Connecticut Superior Court assessed damages for businesses that create and maintain a written cybersecurity program.

Connecticut recently passed two cybersecurity laws that will become effective on October 1, 2021. The newly passed laws modify Connecticut’s existing breach notification requirements and establish a safe harbor for businesses that create and maintain a written cybersecurity program that complies with applicable state or federal law or industry-recognized security frameworks.

Effective October 1, 2018, Connecticut law requires organizations that experience a security breach affecting Connecticut residents’ Social Security numbers (“SSNs”) to provide 24 months of credit monitoring to affected individuals. Previously, Connecticut law required entities to provide 12 months of credit monitoring for breaches affecting SSNs.

On August 29, 2018, Bloomberg Law reported that four Senate Commerce Committee members are discussing a potential online privacy bill. The bipartisan group consists of Senators Jerry Moran (R-KS), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Brian Schatz (D-HI), according to anonymous Senate aides.

On May 23, 2017, various attorneys general of 47 states and the District of Columbia announced that they had reached an $18.5 million settlement with Target regarding the states’ investigation of the company’s 2013 data breach. This represents the largest multi-state data breach settlement achieved to date.

On November 7, 2016, Adobe Systems Inc. (“Adobe”) entered into an assurance of voluntary compliance (“AVC”) with 15 state attorneys general to settle allegations that the company lacked proper measures to protect its systems from a 2013 cyber attack that resulted in the theft of the personal information of millions of customers. Under the terms of the AVC, Adobe must pay $1 million to the attorneys general and implement new data security policies and practices.

On July 1, 2015, Connecticut’s governor signed into law Public Act No. 15-142, An Act Improving Data Security and Agency Effectiveness (the “Act”), that (1) amends the state’s data breach notification law to require notice to affected individuals and the Connecticut Attorney General within 90 days of a security breach and expands the definition of personal information to include biometric data such as fingerprints, retina scans and voice prints; (2) affirmatively requires all businesses, including health insurers, who experience data breaches to offer one year of identity theft prevention services to affected individuals at no cost to them; and (3) requires health insurers and contractors who receive personal information from state agencies to implement and maintain minimum data security safeguards. With the passing of the Act, Connecticut becomes the first state to affirmatively require businesses to provide these security services to consumers.

On April 7, 2015, the FTC announced proposed settlements with TES Franchising, LLC, an organization specializing in business coaching, and American International Mailing, Inc., an alternative mail transporting company, related to charges that the companies falsely claimed they were compliant with the U.S.-EU and U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor Frameworks.

On March 12, 2013, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen announced that a coalition of 38 states had entered into a $7 million settlement with Google Inc. (“Google”) regarding its collection of unsecured Wi-Fi data via the company’s Street View vehicles between 2008 and 2010. The settlement is the culmination of a multi-year investigation by the states that we first reported on in 2010.

In recent weeks, both state and federal regulators have considered security breach notification legislation. On June 15, 2012, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy signed a budget bill that, among other things, amends the state’s security breach notification law. The changes, which will take effect on October 1, 2012, most notably require businesses to notify the state Attorney General no later than the time when notice of a security breach is provided to state residents. Although the law does not specify when notice must be provided to affected individuals, the law states that such notice must be made “without unreasonable delay,” subject to law enforcement delays and the completion of an investigation by the business to determine the nature and scope of the incident, to identify affected individuals, or to restore the reasonable integrity of the data system. As we previously reported, Vermont also recently amended its breach notification statute to require businesses to notify the state Attorney General within 14 days of discovering a security breach or concurrently when notifying consumers, whichever is sooner.

On January 24, 2011, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen and Consumer Protection Commissioner William Rubenstein announced that they had reached an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (“AVC”) with Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (“MetLife”) in connection with an incident involving the disclosure of customer personal information on the Internet. In November 2009, a MetLife employee posted the personally identifiable information of current and former MetLife customers, including their Social Security numbers, on the Internet. Following the discovery of the posting, MetLife acted to mitigate possible harm by providing credit monitoring and identity theft insurance to the affected customers.

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog, on October 10, 2011, California became the seventh state to enact legislation restricting public and private employers alike from using consumer credit reports in making hiring and other personnel decisions. Assembly Bill No. 22 both adds a new provision to the California Labor Code -- Section 1024.5 -- and amends California’s Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA”). Effective January 1, 2012, California employers will be prohibited from requesting a consumer credit report for employment purposes unless they meet one of the limited statutory exceptions, and those employers meeting an exception, will be subjected to increased disclosure requirements. Connecticut, Illinois, Hawaii, Oregon, Maryland and Washington already have similar laws on the books, and many other states, as well as the federal government, are contemplating similar legislation. This trend creates a potential “credit-centric” minefield for employers that do business in any one or more of these states. In light of the multiple laws affecting their use, employers who utilize consumer credit reports in making personnel decisions should proceed cautiously. Employers must evaluate the need for these reports in making personnel decisions, review and modify their policies to ensure compliance with the myriad of regulations in this area, and monitor any new developments to ensure continued compliance.

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog, Connecticut recently became the latest state to pass a law regulating employer use of credit reports. The law, which goes into effect on October 1, 2011, prohibits employers from requiring employees or prospective employees to consent to the employer requesting their credit report as a condition of employment.  The full post includes a discussion of the exceptions to this restriction.

Read our previous posts on regulatory scrutiny of employee credit checks and a similar Illinois law that went into effect on January 1 ...

As reported in BNA’s Privacy Law Watch, on April 1, 2011, a New York law went in effect requiring manufacturers of certain electronic equipment, including devices that have hard drives capable of storing personal information or other confidential data, to register with the Department of Environmental Conservation and maintain an electronic waste acceptance program.  The program must include convenient methods for consumers to return electronic waste to the manufacturer and instructions on how consumers can destroy data on the devices before recycling or disposing of them.  Retailers of covered electronic equipment will be required to provide consumers with information at the point of sale about opportunities offered by manufacturers for the return of electronic waste, to the extent they have been provided such information by the manufacturer.

Connecticut’s newly-elected Attorney General George Jepsen recently announced an agreement with Google, Inc. concerning the company’s refusal to comply with a Civil Investigative Demand brought by his predecessor, freshman Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).  According to a January 28, 2011 press release, to facilitate settlement discussions with the Connecticut-led, 40-state coalition, Google will stipulate that “payload data” compiled in 2008 and 2009 “contained URLs of requested Web pages, partial or complete e-mail communications or other information, including confidential and private information” transmitted by individuals across unsecured wireless networks.

On November 8, 2010, Connecticut Insurance Commissioner Thomas Sullivan announced that Health Net of Connecticut, Inc. (“Health Net”) had agreed to pay $375,000 in penalties for failing to safeguard the personal information of its members from misuse by third parties.  The penalties were part of a settlement agreement reached with Health Net pursuant to which Health Net agreed to provide credit monitoring protection for two years to all affected members and providers in Connecticut.  Health Net also agreed that the costs related to improvements in data and equipment security it made in response to the data breach will not be passed along to Health Net members.

Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA), current head of the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, lost his reelection bid yesterday to Republican Morgan Griffith, the Majority Leader of the Virginia House of Delegates.  Representative Boucher, widely recognized and respected for his legislative efforts in the areas of technology, telecommunications and privacy law, co-authored the CAN-SPAM Act and also introduced draft privacy legislation earlier this year.  Congressman Boucher’s defeat leaves the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet panel without its top Democrat, and it is unclear who will fill that leadership vacancy.

On August 18, 2010, the Connecticut Insurance Department (the “Department”) issued Bulletin IC-25, which requires entities subject to its jurisdiction to notify the Department in writing of any “information security incident” within five calendar days after an incident is identified.  In addition to providing detailed procedures and information to be included in the notification, the Bulletin states that the Department “will want to review, in draft form, any communications proposed to be made” to affected individuals.  The Bulletin further indicates that, “depending on the type of incident and information involved, the Department will also want to have discussions regarding the level of credit monitoring and insurance protection which the Department will require to be offered to affected consumers and for what period of time.”

On July 21, 2010, a coalition of 38 states sent a letter to Google demanding more information about the company’s collection of data from unsecured wireless networks by its Google Street View vehicles.  The letter was sent by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal on behalf of the executive committee of a multistate working group investigating Google Street View practices.  As we reported on June 22, Blumenthal has spearheaded the nationwide investigation into Google Street View.  Among other things, the letter asks Google to identify who was responsible for the software code that allowed the Street View cars to collect data broadcast over Wi-Fi networks, and for a list of states where unauthorized data collection occurred.  The letter also asks Google for details regarding whether any of the data was disclosed to third parties or used for marketing purposes.

The Attorney General of Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, is investigating an alleged breach of medical records at Griffin Hospital in Derby, Connecticut.  The hospital believes that a formerly affiliated radiologist gained unauthorized access to its digital Picture Archiving and Communications System (“PACS”), which stores patient information, including names, exam descriptions and medical record numbers.  In February, the hospital began receiving inquiries from patients who had been contacted by the radiologist to promote professional services offered at another medical facility.  In response to patient inquiries, the hospital conducted an internal investigation that revealed several instances of unauthorized access to the PACS system.  The hospital subsequently notified Attorney General Blumenthal.

In a lawsuit he described as “[s]adly . . . historic,” Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal sued Health Net of Connecticut, Inc. for allegedly failing to secure private patient medical records and financial information involving hundreds of thousands of Connecticut enrollees and promptly notify consumers endangered by the security breach.  The case marks the first action by a state attorney general under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”) Act to enforce provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”).  The suit also alleges a violation of Connecticut’s breach notification statute.

On November 9, 2009, Connecticut’s Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, announced an investigation of whether Blue Cross and Blue Shield (“BCBS”) violated Connecticut’s data breach notification law by waiting until two months after a data breach had occurred to notify affected Connecticut residents.  The data breach, which Attorney General Blumenthal called “one of the most sizable and significant in Connecticut’s history,” involved the theft of a laptop containing confidential unencrypted data from the car of a BCBS employee in late August.  BCBS notified affected Connecticut residents of the breach in late October.