DataBreaches.Net

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

LabMD voluntarily dismisses its lawsuit against the FTC, but says they'll be back

Posted on February 24, 2014 by Dissent

After recently announcing it was winding down its operations as a result of the FTC’s protracted investigation and complaint against it, LabMD voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against the FTC last week. The chronology might suggest that the two events were related, but two people close to the case say that they are not related.

LabMD’s lawsuit, filed in November in the U.S. District Court in D.C., had challenged the FTC’s authority to enforce data security, arguing, in part, that HIPAA’s provisions meant that only HHS had the authority to enforce data security for covered entities. In December, LabMD filed a motion to stay and petition for review in the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

LabMD’s arguments have been rejected by the FTC, who last month denied LabMD’s motion to dismiss its  complaint.

LabMD’s voluntarily dismissal of their lawsuit in U.S. District Court for D.C. came two days after the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit dismissed LabMD’s motion for stay and petition for review. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, noting the court only had authority to review a “cease and desist” order by the FTC. Since there was no such order in this case, the court had no authority to hear the issues raised by LabMD.

Bloomberg Law has uploaded a copy of the notice of voluntary dismissal.

Commenting on the voluntary dismissal, Reed Rubinstein, representing LabMD, gave BNA a statement saying that the move to dismiss the district court case without prejudice was “a procedural, not a substantive, step taken in response to a jurisdictional determination by the Eleventh Circuit.” He reportedly anticipates that the litigation will be refiled elsewhere.

His comment was echoed by someone else close to the case. The dismissal seemingly set up a conflict between the 11th Circuit and the U.S. District Court in D.C.’s interpretation of the appropriate court to challenge FTC over-reach. That source, who asked not to be named, also anticipates that LabMD’s suit challenging FTC’s authority will be re-filed soon.

Both this case and the FTC’s lawsuit against Wyndham continue to be watched closely, as an unfavorable ruling by a court about the FTC’s authority to enforce data security could significantly set both the FTC and consumer advocates back.  Out of 50 data security enforcement actions initiated by the FTC, only the Wyndham and LabMD cases haven’t settled and are likely to result in rulings that will be precedential.

No related posts.

Category: Uncategorized

Post navigation

← IRS Criminal Investigation issues annual report
Health magazine containing Social Security numbers on address labels mailed to 50,000 Medicare recipients →

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

  • Ransomware in Italy, strike at the Diskstation gang: hacker group leader arrested in Milan
  • A year after cyber attack, Columbus could invest $23M in cybersecurity upgrades
  • Gravity Forms Breach Hits 1M WordPress Sites
  • Stormous claims to have protected health info on 600,000 patients of North Country Healthcare. The data appear fake. (1)
  • Back from the Brink: District Court Clears Air Regarding Individualized Damages Assessment in Data Breach Cases
  • Multiple lawsuits filed against Doyon Ltd over April 2024 data breach and late notification
  • Chinese hackers suspected in breach of powerful DC law firm
  • Qilin Emerged as The Most Active Group, Exploiting Unpatched Fortinet Vulnerabilities
  • CISA tags Citrix Bleed 2 as exploited, gives agencies a day to patch
  • McDonald’s McHire leak involving ‘123456’ admin password exposes 64 million applicant chat records

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

  • Here’s What a Reproductive Police State Looks Like
  • Meta investors, Zuckerberg to square off at $8 billion trial over alleged privacy violations
  • Australian law is now clearer about clinicians’ discretion to tell our patients’ relatives about their genetic risk
  • The ICO’s AI and biometrics strategy
  • Trump Border Czar Boasts ICE Can ‘Briefly Detain’ People Based On ‘Physical Appearance’
  • DeleteMyInfo Wins 2025 Digital Privacy Excellence Award from Internet Safety Council
  • TikTok Loses First Appeal Against £12.7M ICO Fine, Faces Second Investigation by DPC

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.