DataBreaches.Net

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

Was LabMD Hacked? A Key Issue in Lawsuit Against FTC Lawyers

Posted on August 2, 2018 by Dissent

Craig A. Newman of Patterson Belknap writes:

Did LabMD, the now-defunct cancer testing company, expose sensitive patient information with shoddy data security practices as U.S. regulations have charged, or was the company victimized by a private forensics firm extorting it for business – raising the troubling question of whether the entire case against LabMD was built on a false premise.

That is a central question in Daugherty et al. v. Sheer et al., a case pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. LabMD has asked the court to reconsider its decision that two Federal Trade Commission lawyers are immune from a lawsuit filed against them by LabMD, charging that its First Amendment rights were violated when the FTC lawyers engaged in a “deliberate and successful effort to cause the Commission to authorize an enforcement action” based on misrepresenting critical facts in the case. LabMD has charged that FTC lawyers Alain Sheer and Ruth Yodaiken recommended that the commission start an enforcement action that “was laced with lies.”

Read more on Data Security Law Blog.

Category: Commentaries and AnalysesHealth DataOf NoteU.S.

Post navigation

← EXCLUSIVE: Creditmate.in developer’s goof left 19,000 consumers’ credit reports unsecured
NY: GE engineer accused of data theft back in court →

1 thought on “Was LabMD Hacked? A Key Issue in Lawsuit Against FTC Lawyers”

  1. Anonymous says:
    August 2, 2018 at 6:39 pm

    Didn’t the secretary share the company files on Limewire? If that is true, I would think they were not hacked.

Comments are closed.

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

  • IMPACT: 170 patients harmed as a result of Qilin’s ransomware attack on NHS vendor Synnovis
  • DOJ’s Data Security Program: Key Compliance Considerations for Impacted Entities
  • UBS reports data leak after cyber attack on provider, client data unaffected
  • Scania confirms insurance claim data breach in extortion attempt
  • Cybersecurity takes a big hit in new Trump executive order
  • Episource notifying 5.4 million patients of cyberattack in January
  • Investigation of 2024 Helsinki data breach – Report
  • Major trial underway for data leak that left 72,000 victims in France
  • Anubis: A Closer Look at an Emerging Ransomware with Built-in Wiper
  • HealthEC Agrees to $5.48 Million Settlement to End Data Breach Lawsuit

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

  • DOJ’s Data Security Program: Key Compliance Considerations for Impacted Entities
  • 23andMe fined £2.31 million for failing to protect UK users’ genetic data
  • DOJ Seeks More Time on Tower Dumps
  • Your household smart products must respect your privacy – including your air fryer
  • Vermont signs Kids Code into law, faces legal challenges
  • Data Categories and Surveillance Pricing: Ferguson’s Nuanced Approach to Privacy Innovation
  • Anne Wojcicki Wins Bidding for 23andMe

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.