DataBreaches.Net

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

Provider of Medical Transcript Services Settles FTC Charges That It Failed to Adequately Protect Consumers’ Personal Information

Posted on February 1, 2014 by Dissent

Press release from the FTC, followed by my comments:

A company that provides medical transcription services has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that its inadequate data security measures unfairly exposed the personal information of thousands of consumers on the open Internet, in some instances including consumers’ medical histories and examination notes.

In its complaint against California-based GMR Transcription Services, Inc. and the company’s two principal owners, the FTC alleges that GMR hired contractors to transcribe audio files received from the company’s customers.  The contractors downloaded the files from the company’s network, transcribed them, and then uploaded transcripts back to the network.  GMR then made the transcripts available to customers either directly or by e-mail.

Because of inadequate security, the complaint alleges, medical transcript files prepared between March 2011 and October 2011 by Fedtrans, GMR’s service provider, were indexed by a major internet search engine and were publicly available to anyone using the search engine.  Some of the files contained notes from medical examinations of children and other highly sensitive medical information, such as information about psychiatric disorders, alcohol use, drug abuse, and pregnancy loss.

The FTC’s consent order with GMR marks the 50th  data security case the Commission has settled since undertaking its data security program 12 years ago.  The Commission issued a statement today reaffirming the basic principles behind the FTC’s data security enforcement program.

“What started in 2002 with a single case applying established FTC Act precedent to the area of data security has grown into a vital enforcement program that has helped to increase protections for consumers and has encouraged companies to make safeguarding consumer data a priority,” the Commission statement says.

In the case of GMR, the files handled by the company included sensitive information about consumers, including their driver’s license numbers, tax information, medical histories, notes from children’s medical examinations, medications and psychiatric notes, according to the FTC’s complaint.

According to the complaint, GMR’s privacy statements and policies promised that “materials going through our system are highly secure and are never divulged to anyone.” However, the company never required the individual typists it hired as contractors to implement security measures, such as installing anti-virus software.  In addition, an independent service provider GMR hired to transcribe medical files stored and transmitted the files in clear and readable text on a server that was configured so that they could be accessed online by anyone without authentication.

Under the terms of GMR’s settlement with the FTC, GMR and its owners are prohibited from misrepresenting the extent to which they maintain the privacy and security of consumers’ personal information.  They also must establish a comprehensive information security program that will protect consumers’ sensitive personal information, including information the company provided to independent service providers.  In addition, the company must have the program evaluated both initially and every two years by a certified third party. The settlement will be in force for the next 20 years.

The Commission vote to accept the consent agreement package containing the proposed consent order for public comment was 4-0. The Commission vote to issue the statement also was 4-0. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through March 3, 2014, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Interested parties can submit written comments electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the “Invitation To Comment” part of the “Supplementary Information” section. Comments in electronic form should be submitted online and following the instructions on the web-based form. Comments in paper form should be mailed or delivered to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC requests that any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.

NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000.

GMR Transcription has not issued any statement about the settlement as of the time of this posting, and I have emailed them to request one.

My Comments:

Why didn’t I/we know about this breach before now? I went back via a Google search and find no mention of this breach anywhere. Nor is it clear how it even came to the FTC’s attention. I’ve covered a number of breaches involving transcription services, but GMR and FedTrans’ names did not come up in any of them.

This breach is not on HHS’s public breach tool. Was this breach ever reported to HHS? And if so, what, if anything, did they do? While FedTrans is located in India, any covered entity using California-headquartered GMR should have had a business associates agreement in place and would be responsible for notifying affected patients. Did GMR notify covered entities of this breach and did they, in turn, notify the affected patients? I’ll have to send yet another inquiry to HHS, it seems.

The timing of this settlement is interesting, as it seems to be another reminder to those who challenge the FTC’s authority to enforce data security that yes, the FTC does and will continue to protect consumers and patients if entities fail to use commercially reasonable and appropriate security controls and/or misrepresent their privacy and security practices.

Related Files from the FTC:

  •  Agreement Containing Consent Order (61.31 KB)
  •  Complaint (40.39 KB)
  •  Complaint Exhibits A – D (1.65 MB)
  •  Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment (24.27 KB)

Related posts:

  • FTC Takes Action Against Drizly and its CEO James Cory Rellas for Security Failures that Exposed Data of 2.5 Million Consumers
  • FTC Announces Hearings On Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century
  • FTC Says Genetic Testing Company 1Health Failed to Protect Privacy and Security of DNA Data and Unfairly Changed its Privacy Policy
  • Operators of MoviePass Subscription Service Agree to Settle FTC Allegations that They Limited Usage, Failed to Secure User Data
Category: Breach IncidentsBusiness SectorCommentaries and AnalysesHealth DataOf NoteSubcontractorU.S.

Post navigation

← Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah: Campers’ information stolen by camp employee
Commission Statement Marking the FTC’s 50th Data Security Settlement – January 31, 2014 →

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

  • National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in 324 Defendants Charged in Connection with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud
  • Swiss Health Foundation Radix Hit by Cyberattack Affecting Federal Data
  • Russian hackers get 7 and 5 years in prison for large-scale cyber attacks with ransomware, over 60 million euros in bitcoins seized
  • Bolton Walk-In Clinic patient data leak locked down (finally!)
  • 50 Customers of French Bank Hit by Insider SIM Swap Scam
  • Ontario health agency atHome ordered to inform 200,000 patients of March data breach
  • Fact-Checking Claims By Cybernews: The 16 Billion Record Data Breach That Wasn’t
  • Horizon Healthcare RCM discloses ransomware attack in December
  • Disgruntled IT Worker Jailed for Cyber Attack, Huddersfield
  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report

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

  • The Trump administration is building a national citizenship data system
  • Supreme Court Decision on Age Verification Tramples Free Speech and Undermines Privacy
  • New Jersey Issues Draft Privacy Regulations: The New
  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report
  • 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

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.