DataBreaches.Net

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

Contracting in the Cloud: Who Pays for a Data Breach?

Posted on October 5, 2016 by Dissent

In a recent white paper I co-authored with Protenus, Inc., we noted the significant risks of a breach involving a vendor or business associate. In following up in a subsequent post, I also included a “pop quiz” for readers to use to test their understanding about the terms of any contract they have in terms of responsibilities following a breach.

Now Scott Nonaka and Kevin Rubino have written a more lawyerly analysis about contractual clauses that may be very important in determining who pays for what in the event of a breach involving a cloud service. Here’s part of their article:

Although much is at stake, the answer to the question is not always clear because allocating costs will usually depend on the terms of the cloud services contract, which in most cases will contain a limitation of liability clause that is commonplace in contracts for the sale of goods and services. Standard clauses usually state that, in the event of a breach, neither party will be responsible for the other party’s “consequential damages,” thereby limiting their potential liability to “direct damages.” While the clause may seem clearly worded, the meaning of the term “consequential damages” is by no means clear, let alone in the context of a cloud services contract. Below, we identify some issues to consider when negotiating and drafting a limitation of liability clause so as to provide greater clarity and predictability in allocating risk and costs.

[…]

At this time, and for the foreseeable future, it will be difficult to predict with great certainty how courts will decide whether any particular harm arising from a data breach is direct or consequential damages. Given this uncertainty, as well as the potentially massive costs associated with a data breach, both consumers and providers of cloud services would be well-advised not to rely on standard, boilerplate language in limitation of liability clauses that simply waives consequential damages to allocate their potential liability. They should instead address the issue of potential future costs associated with a data breach in detail at the outset of their relationship by bargaining for and expressly assigning or excluding those costs in their agreement.

Read more on Bloomberg BNA.


Related:

  • Cyber-Attack On Bectu’s Parent Union Sparks UK National Security Concerns
  • Attorney General James Announces Settlement with Wojeski & Company Accounting Firm
  • JFL Lost Up to $800,000 Weekly After Cyberattack, CEO Says No Patient or Staff Data Was Compromised
  • John Bolton Indictment Provides Interesting Details About Hack of His AOL Account and Extortion Attempt
  • UK: 'Catastrophic' attack as Russians hack files on EIGHT MoD bases and post them on the dark web
  • A business's cyber insurance policy included ransom coverage, but when they needed it, the insurer refused to pay. Why?
Category: Commentaries and AnalysesOf NoteU.S.

Post navigation

← Man arrested for streaming porn to electronic billboard
Feds rehire contractor linked to massive OPM data breach →

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

  • Washington Post hack exposes personal data of John Bolton, almost 10,000 others
  • Draft UK Cyber Security and Resilience Bill Enters UK Parliament
  • Suspected Russian hacker reportedly detained in Thailand, faces possible US extradition
  • Did you hear the one about the ransom victim who made a ransom installment payment after they were told that it wouldn’t be accepted?
  • 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

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

  • Maryland Privacy Crackdown Raises Bar for Disclosure Compliance
  • Lawmakers Warn Governors About Sharing Drivers’ Data with Federal Government
  • 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

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.