DataBreaches.Net

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

Commenters on Henry Schein consent order: FTC was too lenient

Posted on February 16, 2016 by Dissent

Public comments on the consent order in FTC v. Henry Schein Practice Solutions are now available. The FTC will be responding to commenters, but I wanted to note one particular point raised by commenter because I hadn’t considered it when I filed my complaint with the FTC, and I think the commenters are right. Note that I did not submit any comments to the FTC on the proposed consent order, as overall, I was pleased that they had pursued the matter and that Schein had consented to individually notify all customers, which was the issue that had finally resulted in me filing the complaint in the first place.

But was $250,000 enough of a fine?

Many commenters pointed out that given Schein’s lucrative business, the fine was too small. But a careful reading of the settlement includes this statement: “No portion of any payment under this Part shall be deemed a payment of any fine, penalty, or punitive assessment.”  So if it’s not a monetary penalty or fine, what is the appropriate amount?

I would think that under the terms of the settlement, if a customer had a breach and incurred breach costs because the data weren’t encrypted as had been advertised, some of the funds could be used to reimburse the customer, but what about costs customers may have incurred improving their security once they learned their data wasn’t as secure as they had been led to believe?  If they spent $X to get a system they believed provided AES encryption and didn’t get it, who reimburses them for the costs of converting their system to AES encryption?

Two commenters pointed out that nothing in the settlement reimburses customers for the cost of encrypting patient data that they erroneously believed was appropriately encrypted. And that is an excellent point.  As part of the settlement, should Schein have been required to provide all clients with free upgrades to software that does meet HIPAA standards for encryption or to reimburse them for the cost of converting their Dentrix database to another product that would provide AES encryption?

DataBreaches.net asked Henry Schein to respond to some of the comments, including what they were doing if customers sought compensation or assistance in upgrading to AES encryption. The company declined to comment, however, stating:

Given that we are a public company with certain reporting obligations, and that the matter with the FTC has not been concluded, it would be inappropriate for us to respond to your inquiries.

If any of their customers has approached them for reimbursement or compensation for upgrading to AES encryption, please contact this site at breaches[at]databreaches.net.


Related:

  • US company with access to biggest telecom firms uncovers breach by nation-state hackers
  • 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)
  • Safaricom-Backed M-TIBA Victim of a Possible Data Breach Affecting Millions of Kenyans
  • Another plastic surgery practice fell prey to a cyberattack that acquired patient photos and info
  • Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
Category: Breach IncidentsCommentaries and AnalysesHealth DataSubcontractorU.S.

Post navigation

← NC: Vidant Health notified employees of data breach
Hack by Anonymous created hassles for hospital patients during Flint water crisis →

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

  • District of Massachusetts Allows Higher-Ed Student Data Breach Claims to Survive
  • End of the game for cybercrime infrastructure: 1025 servers taken down
  • Doctor Alliance Data Breach: 353GB of Patient Files Allegedly Compromised, Ransom Demanded
  • St. Thomas Brushed Off Red Flags Before Dark-Web Data Dump Rocks Houston
  • A Wiltshire police breach posed possible safety concerns for violent crime victims as well as prison officers
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel
  • Almost two years later, Alpha Omega Winery notifies those affected by a data breach.
  • Court of Appeal reaffirms MFSA liability in data leak case, orders regulator to shoulder costs
  • A jailed hacking kingpin reveals all about the gang that left a trail of destruction
  • Army gynecologist took secret videos of patients during intimate exams, lawsuit says

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

  • As shoplifting surges, British retailers roll out ‘invasive’ facial recognition tools
  • Data broker Kochava agrees to change business practices to settle lawsuit
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel
  • Changes in the Rules for Disclosure for Substance Use Disorder Treatment Records: 42 CFR Part 2: What Changed, Why It Matters, and How It Aligns with HIPAAs
  • Always watching: How ICE’s plan to monitor social media 24/7 threatens privacy and civic participation

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.