DataBreaches.Net

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

California’s Latest Amendments to Its Data Security Breach Notification Law – Much Ado about Nothing?

Posted on October 3, 2014 by Dissent

Tanya Forsheit and M. Scott Koller of BakerHostetler have a good write-up of the new provisions in California law and how the language of AB 1710 has led to some confusion as to whether California now requires breached entities to offer free credit monitoring protection for 12 months if certain types of personal information are involved. From their commentary:

Under existing law, California Civil Code Section 1798.82 requires persons or businesses to notify affected individuals and, in some cases, the California Attorney General, in the event of a security breach involving the personal information of a California resident. A.B. 1710 also amends this section, stating that:

“If the person or business providing the notification was the source of the breach, an offer to provide appropriate identity theft prevention and mitigation services, if any, shall be provided at no cost to the affected person for not less than 12 months, along with all information necessary to take advantage of the offer to any person whose information was or may have been breached if the breach exposed or may have exposed personal information defined in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (h).” (emphasis added).

In the short 48 hours since the Governor signed the legislation, a split of opinion has emerged in online commentary (from some of the largest law firms in the country) as to what this amendment requires. Some commentators have interpreted this amendment to mean that persons or businesses in California are now required to provide identity theft prevention and mitigation services in the event of a data security breach involving Social Security or driver’s license numbers if the person or organization at issue is the source of the breach.

Other commentators have taken a different position with respect to this provision of A.B. 1710 – in particular, with respect to the “if any” language noted above. Those commentators interpret this language as requiring that identity theft prevention and mitigation services, if offered, must be provided by the organization without cost to affected individuals and for a period of at least 12 months. In this interpretation, the offering of identity theft prevention and mitigation services by persons or businesses would be permissive, but not mandatory.

Read more on BakerHostetler.

Related posts:

  • IRS’s Top 10 Identity Theft Prosecutions
  • IRS’s Top Ten Identity Theft Prosecutions
Category: Commentaries and AnalysesOf NoteState/Local

Post navigation

← On Accuracy in Cybersecurity
McCordsville teen among four accused in international computer hacking ring →

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.