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.

 

 

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

  • ICE takes steps to deport the Australian hacker known as “DR32”
  • Hearing on the Federal Government and AI
  • Nigerian National Sentenced To More Than Five Years For Hacking, Fraud, And Identity Theft Scheme
  • Data breach of patient info ends in firing of Miami hospital employee
  • Texas DOT investigates breach of crash report records, sends notification letters
  • PowerSchool hacker pleads guilty, released on personal recognizance bond
  • Rewards for Justice offers $10M reward for info on RedLine developer or RedLine’s use by foreign governments
  • New evidence links long-running hacking group to Indian government
  • Zaporizhzhia Cyber ​​Police Exposes Hacker Who Caused Millions in Losses to Victims by Mining Cryptocurrency
  • Germany fines Vodafone $51 million for privacy, security breaches

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 Decision That Murdered Privacy
  • Hearing on the Federal Government and AI
  • California county accused of using drones to spy on residents
  • How the FBI Sought a Warrant to Search Instagram of Columbia Student Protesters
  • Germany fines Vodafone $51 million for privacy, security breaches
  • Malaysia enacts data sharing rules for public sector
  • U.S. Enacts Take It Down Act

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.