DataBreaches.Net

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

LabMD moves to disqualify Commissioner Ramirez from administrative case; also moves to dismiss entire case

Posted on April 27, 2015 by Dissent

As the administrative hearing in FTC v. LabMD gets closer to resuming, there have been two developments to note. The first is that LabMD has moved to disqualify Commissioner Edith Ramirez, alleging that she has been “irrevocably tainted and compromised” by her involvement in the FTC’s response to the House Oversight Committee’s investigation of Tiversa.

I do not trust my ability to accurately summarize their arguments with sufficient detail, so I am uploading their motion here (pdf, 9 pp). I think their strongest/most impressive argument involves the appearance of bias. To the extent that any commissioner gets involved in defending FTC against LabMD’s accusations to the House Oversight Committee, it would seemingly create a situation in which it appears that the FTC commissioner is already convinced that they have done nothing wrong – even though LabMD has yet to present its witnesses.

Keep in mind that Commissioner Brill already recused herself from this case. If Commissioner Ramirez is disqualified or recuses herself too, they’d be down to three Commissioners. And given that Commissioner Wright has already expressed concerns about the whole process being stacked in the FTC’s favor, I wonder what might happen.

In another development, LabMD also moved to dismiss the entire case, but I’m guessing that’s just a Hail Mary/leave no stone unturned type of thing that no one really expects to work. The motion is a detailed recap of everything LabMD has been arguing from the beginning of this interminably long case, and the argument is based on lack of due process. If you haven’t kept up with the case, the motion, which is too big to upload to this site, will likely be available on the FTC’s site soon in their files for this case. You can check here for it. You can also search PHIprivacy for my previous coverage of the case. There’s a lot.

I wonder how tempted Judge Chappell might be by now to just dismiss, just to end this never-ending case.

 

 

 


Related:

  • Landmark civil penalty of AU$5.8 million issued under Australia’s Privacy Act
  • How many courts have had sealed and sensitive files exposed by one vendor's error?
  • Legal Aid Agency chief admits difficulties understanding impact of cyberattack
  • Revealed: Afghan data breach after MoD official left laptop open on train
  • The 4TB time bomb: when EY's cloud went public (and what it taught us)
  • Some lower-tier ransomware gangs have formed a new RaaS alliance -- or have they? (1)
Category: Commentaries and AnalysesExposureHealth DataID Theft

Post navigation

← And then there were four five (Ascension Health entities breached)
SendGrid Update on Security Incident and Additional Security Measures →

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

  • US, allies sanction Russian bulletproof hosting services for ransomware support
  • Researchers claim ‘largest leak ever’ after uncovering WhatsApp enumeration flaw
  • Large medical lab in South Africa suffers multiple data breaches
  • Report released on PowerSchool cyber attack
  • Sue The Hackers – Google Sues Over Phishing as a Service
  • Princeton University Data Breach Impacts Alumni, Students, Employees
  • Eurofiber admits crooks swiped data from French unit after cyberattack
  • Five major changes to the regulation of cybersecurity in the UK under the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill
  • French agency Pajemploi reports data breach affecting 1.2M people
  • From bad to worse: Doctor Alliance hacked again by same threat actor (1)

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

  • Researchers claim ‘largest leak ever’ after uncovering WhatsApp enumeration flaw
  • CIPL Publishes Discussion Paper Comparing U.S. State Privacy Law Definitions of Personal Data and Sensitive Data
  • India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 brought into force
  • Five major changes to the regulation of cybersecurity in the UK under the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill
  • Keeping Cool When ICE Arrives: Basic Raid Response Strategies for Laboratories

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net
Security Issue: security[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.