DataBreaches.Net

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

LabMD ruling should be a wake-up call for FTC data security enforcement

Posted on November 23, 2015 by Dissent

For another informed perspective on the impact of the initial decision in FTC v. LabMD, I’d strongly encourage this site’s readers to read Gus Hurwitz’s thought-provoking analysis and commentary on TechPolicyDaily.com.  Here’s a snippet:

… Judge Chappell had none of the FTC’s argument. “The term ‘likely’,” he tells us, “does not mean that something is merely possible. Instead, ‘likely’ means that it is probable that something will occur.” He bases this conclusion in part on available case law and prior FTC decisions. But he goes well beyond this, saying as well that “[i]f unfair conduct liability can be premised on ‘unreasonable’ data security alone, upon proof of a generalized, unspecified ‘risk’ of a future data breach, without regard to the probability of its occurrence, and without proof of actual or likely substantial consumer injury, then [the statutory standard provided in Section 5(n)] would not provide the required constitutional notice of what is prohibited.”

No related posts.

Category: Commentaries and AnalysesHealth DataOf NoteU.S.

Post navigation

← Smut-viewing Android apps actually steal your data
Quest Diagnostics sued over fax errors breach, but are they really responsible? →

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

  • UK police arrest four in connection with M&S, Co-op and Harrods cyberattacks (1)
  • At U.S. request, France jails Russian basketball player Daniil Kasatkin on suspicion of ransomware conspiracy
  • Avantic Medical Lab hacked; patient data leaked by Everest Group
  • Integrated Oncology Network victim of phishing attack; multiple locations affected (2)
  • HHS’ Office for Civil Rights Settles HIPAA Privacy and Security Rule Investigation with Deer Oaks Behavioral Health for $225k and a Corrective Action Plan
  • HB1127 Explained: North Dakota’s New InfoSec Requirements for Financial Corporations
  • Credit reports among personal data of 190,000 breached, put for sale on Dark Web; IT vendor fined
  • Five youths arrested on suspicion of phishing
  • Russia Jailed Hacker Who Worked for Ukrainian Intelligence to Launch Cyberattacks on Critical Infrastructure
  • Kentfield Hospital victim of cyberattack by World Leaks, patient data involved

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

  • How to Build on Washington’s “My Health, My Data” Act
  • Department of Justice Subpoenas Doctors and Clinics Involved in Performing Transgender Medical Procedures on Children
  • Google Settles Privacy Class Action Over Period Tracking App
  • ICE Is Searching a Massive Insurance and Medical Bill Database to Find Deportation Targets
  • Franklin, Tennessee Resident Sentenced to 30 Months in Federal Prison on Multiple Cyber Stalking Charges
  • On July 7, Gemini AI will access your WhatsApp and more. Learn how to disable it on Android.
  • German court awards Facebook user €5,000 for data protection violations

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.