DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Governor Brown signs SB 46 into law; expands California’s breach notification obligations when online account data is breached

Posted on September 27, 2013 by Dissent

Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 46 into law today.

Dominique R. Shelton and Paul G. Martinoof of Alston & Bird had a good summary of the changes the law makes:

S.B. 46 amends Section 1798.82(h) to expand the definition of “personal information” for which breach notification is required. The new law adds to the definition: “A user name or email address, in combination with a password or security question and answer that would permit access to an online account.” [Emphasis added]

Notification for breaches of personal information involving user names and email accounts may or shall, depending on the circumstance, occur differently than with breaches involving other types of personal data. The lawyers summarize it this way:

  • Notification for Breaches of Online Account Data that Does Not Involve Login Credentials for an Email Account: In the case of breaches involving Online Account Data and “no other personal information,” businesses may comply with the notification obligations of the statute “by providing the security breach notification in electronic or other form that directs the person whose personal information has been breached promptly to change his or her password and security question or answer, as applicable, or to take other steps appropriate to protect the online account with the person or business and all other online accounts for which the person whose personal information has been breached uses the same user name or email address and password or security question or answer.” [Emphasis added]
  • Notification for Breaches of Online Account Data Involving Login Credentials for an Email Account: In the case of breaches involving Online Account Data that contains “login credentials of an email account furnished by the person or business,” the entity that furnished the login credentials, if breached, “shall not comply with this section by providing the security breach notification to that email address, but may, instead, comply with this section by providing notice by another method described in [the statute for breaches of other personal information] or by clear and conspicuous notice delivered to the resident online when the resident is connected to the online account from an Internet Protocol address or online location from which the person or business knows the resident customarily accesses the account.” [Emphasis added]

Read more of Alston & Bird’s advisory.  The amendments go into effect in January, 2014.

No related posts.

Category: Of NoteState/Local

Post navigation

← MO: R.T. Jones Capital Equities Management, Inc. informs clients’ employees of breach
Santa Clara Valley Medical Center notifying patients after laptop stolen from audiology department →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Alert: Scattered Spider has added North American airline and transportation organizations to their target list
  • Northern Light Health patients affected by security incident at Compumedics; 10 healthcare entities affected
  • Privacy commissioner reviewing reported Ontario Health atHome data breach
  • CMS warns Medicare providers of fraud scheme
  • Ex-student charged with wave of cyber attacks on Sydney uni
  • Detaining Hackers Before the Crime? Tamil Nadu’s Supreme Court Approves Preventive Custody for Cyber Offenders
  • Potential Cyberattack Scrambles Columbia University Computer Systems
  • 222,000 customer records allegedly from Manhattan Parking Group leaked
  • Breaches have consequences (sometimes) (1)
  • Kansas City Man Pleads Guilty for Hacking a Non-Profit

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Germany Wants Apple, Google to Remove DeepSeek From Their App Stores
  • Supreme Court upholds Texas law requiring age verification on porn sites
  • Justices nix Medicaid ‘right’ to choose doctor, defunding Planned Parenthood in South Carolina
  • European Commission publishes its plan to enable more effective law enforcement access to data
  • Sacred Secrets: The Biblical Case for Privacy and Data Protection
  • Microsoft’s Departing Privacy Chief Calls for Regulator Outreach
  • Nestle USA Settles Suit Over Job-Application Medical Questions

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.