DataBreaches.Net

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

As if a 20-Year Consent Order Wasn’t Enough Fun: FTC Brings First Monetary Settlement in Information Security Case

Posted on January 7, 2016 by Dissent

Adam H. Greene of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP discusses the consent order Henry Schein Practice Solutions signed to settle an FTC complaint, and finds it noteworthy for a number of reasons. One of the reasons, he writes, is that it is the first consent order in a data security case to involve a monetary penalty.

I don’t agree with framing it that way, though, as this really wasn’t about data security enforcement or Henry Schein simply offering “subpar encryption.” This case was about deceptive or misleading advertising, which brings it squarely under the non-security enforcement cases FTC has tackled. Had Henry Schein advertised its product by saying, “This product does not provide AES-256 encryption, but rather a weaker form of data security that does not fully comply, by itself, with HIPAA’s Security Rule,” could the FTC ever have gone after them? I don’t think so.

That issue aside for the moment, here’s another point Greene makes:

The FTC’s complaint alleged that the encryption that Schein’s software used “was not capable of helping dentists protect patient data, as required by HIPAA.” What the FTC’s complaint suggests that the HIPAA Security Rule requires arguably is not the case. The HIPAA Breach Notification Rule includes a breach notification safe harbor if data is encrypted in accordance with NIST standards; however, the Security Rule, in contrast, does not. Although it appears that a covered entity or business associate could comply with the HIPAA Security Rule even with encryption that does not meet NIST standards, this FTC settlement raises the prospect that the FTC may consider related claims of HIPAA compliance as deceptive if encryption does not meet NIST standards.

Greene also mentions some take-home messages, beginning with:

HIPAA compliance may not be enough.

Yes, I think the LabMD enforcement action has already demonstrated that the FTC will pursue cases that HHS/OCR might not pursue. Then too, even 7 years ago, they went after RiteAid and CVS on disposal of pharmacy records, even though both those entities fall under HIPAA.

Read Greene’s full article on Privacy & Security Law Blog.

Related posts:

  • Henry Schein re-encrypted by BlackCat again
  • HIPAA Security Rule Facility Access Controls – What are they and how do you implement them?
  • FTC Takes Action Against Drizly and its CEO James Cory Rellas for Security Failures that Exposed Data of 2.5 Million Consumers
  • FTC Enforcement Action to Bar GoodRx from Sharing Consumers’ Sensitive Health Info for Advertising
Category: Commentaries and Analyses

Post navigation

← ICO takes enforcement action against Alzheimer’s Society (UPDATED)
Sophos acquisition Cyberoam victim of cyber attack →

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.