DataBreaches.Net

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

LabMD v. FTC update

Posted on November 27, 2013 by Dissent

The latest updates to a case this blog has been following:

The FTC has responded to LabMD’s motion for a protective order to quash numerous subpoenas for discovery and to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

On the matter of the protective order, the court granted in part and denied in part, and denied the request for oral argument. From my quick read, it appears that LabMD prevailed on the issue of pre-2005 discovery and was able to protect materials relating to the CEO’s book about the case. In all other respects, the FTC seems to have prevailed on discovery.

The FTC’s response to the motion to dismiss was pretty much what I expected to read based on their arguments in Wyndham and based on conversations I’ve had with Dan Solove and Woody Hartzog. Although LabMD tries to argue that HIPAA/HITECH trump the FTC, the FTC argues that the statutes are complementary and can be interpreted in a consistent way, with FTC continuing to have the authority to protect consumers from harm due to unreasonable data security. But you’ll see what you think.

 

Category: Health Data

Post navigation

← University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Privacy Breach Prompts Warning to Patients
Happy Thanksgiving! →

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

  • Alleged Geisinger hacker will defend himself pro se.
  • Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare reveals it was also impacted by Cerner/Legacy Oracle cyberattack
  • Hospital cyberattack investigation complete, no formal review needed
  • Largest Ever Seizure of Funds Related to Crypto Confidence Scams
  • 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

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.