DataBreaches.Net

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

Court grants stay in FTC v. LabMD

Posted on November 10, 2016 by Dissent

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has granted LabMD’s request for a stay of FTC’s final order in FTC v. LabMD.

From the opinion:

First, it is not clear that a reasonable interpretation of § 45(n) includes intangible harms like those that the FTC found in this case. As the FTC Opinion said, § 45(n) is a codification of the FTC’s 1980 Policy Statement on Unfairness. That Policy Statement notably provided that the FTC “is not concerned with . . . merely speculative harms,” but that “[i]n most cases a substantial injury involves monetary harm” or “[u]nwarranted health and safety risks.” Id. “Emotional impact and other more subjective types of harm, on the other hand, will not ordinarily make a practice unfair.” Id. The FTC Opinion here also relied upon the legislative history of § 45(n). But the Senate Report that the FTC relied on also says that “[e]motional impact and more subjective types of harm alone are not intended to make an injury unfair.” S. Rep. No. 103-130, 1993 WL 322671, at *13 (1993). Further, LabMD points out that what the FTC here found to be harm is “not even ‘intangible,’” as a true data breach of personal information to the public might be, “but rather is purely conceptual” because this harm is only speculative. LabMD has thus made a strong showing that the FTC’s factual findings and legal interpretations may not be reasonable.

Second, it is not clear that the FTC reasonably interpreted “likely to cause” as that term is used in § 45(n). The FTC held that “likely to cause” does not mean “probable.” Instead, it interpreted “likely to cause” to mean “significant risk,” explaining that “a practice may be unfair if the magnitude of the potential injury is large, even if likelihood of the injury occurring is low.” The FTC looked to different dictionaries and found different definitions of “likely.” It is through this approach that it argues its construction is correct, considering the statute’s context as a whole. Even respecting this process, our reading of the same dictionaries leads us to a different result. The FTC looked to dictionary definitions that say “likely” means “probable” or “reasonably expected.”Reliance on these dictionaries can reasonably allow the FTC to reject the meaning of “likely” advocated by LabMD, that is, a “high probability of occurring.” However, we read both “probable” and “reasonably expected,” to require a higher threshold than that set by the FTC. In other words, we do not read the word “likely” to include something that has a low likelihood. We do not believe an interpretation that does this is reasonable.

And there’s more.

The statements in the opinion do not, of course, how the court will rule on the issues, but it’s nice to see the court recognize that LabMD has raised some serious issues and that the FTC’s interpretation is not necessarily reasonable.

 

 

Related posts:

  • Digging in their heels: Wyndham and LabMD challenge FTC’s authority in data security cases
  • FTC reverses ALJ in LabMD case, finds for itself
  • FTC v. LabMD ruling issued: FTC loses data security enforcement case (Update2)
  • FTC claims victory in Wyndham case; Appellate court upholds authority to enforce data security
Category: Health DataOf NoteU.S.

Post navigation

← Canadian casino says it was hacked, data was stolen (UPDATED)
Data Privacy Event Affects UFCW Local 655 Food Employers Joint Pension Plan →

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

  • National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in 324 Defendants Charged in Connection with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud
  • Swiss Health Foundation Radix Hit by Cyberattack Affecting Federal Data
  • Russian hackers get 7 and 5 years in prison for large-scale cyber attacks with ransomware, over 60 million euros in bitcoins seized
  • Bolton Walk-In Clinic patient data leak locked down (finally!)
  • 50 Customers of French Bank Hit by Insider SIM Swap Scam
  • Ontario health agency atHome ordered to inform 200,000 patients of March data breach
  • Fact-Checking Claims By Cybernews: The 16 Billion Record Data Breach That Wasn’t
  • Horizon Healthcare RCM discloses ransomware attack in December
  • Disgruntled IT Worker Jailed for Cyber Attack, Huddersfield
  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report

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

  • The Trump administration is building a national citizenship data system
  • Supreme Court Decision on Age Verification Tramples Free Speech and Undermines Privacy
  • New Jersey Issues Draft Privacy Regulations: The New
  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report
  • Germany Wants Apple, Google to Remove DeepSeek From Their App Stores
  • Supreme Court upholds Texas law requiring age verification on porn sites
  • Justices nix Medicaid ‘right’ to choose doctor, defunding Planned Parenthood in South Carolina

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.