DataBreaches.Net

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

FTC reveals provisionally redacted complaint against LabMD

Posted on September 12, 2013 by Dissent

The Federal Trade Commission has released a provisionally redacted public version of its complaint against LabMD  (PHIprivacy.net’s coverage of LabMD linked here).

Intriguingly, the complaint cites another situation that appears to be unrelated to the “1718 file” incident:

In October 2012, the Sacramento, California Police Department found more than 35 Day Sheets and a small number of copied checks in the possession of individuals who pleaded no contest to state charges of identity theft. These Day Sheets include personal information, such as names and SSNs, of several hundred consumers in different states. Many of these consumers were not included in the P2P insurance aging file, and some of the information post-dates the P2P insurance aging file. A number of the SSNs in the Day Sheets are being, or have been, used by people with different names, which may indicate that the SSNs have been used by identity thieves.

The inclusion of this information may be used to demonstrate that the Limewire incident was not an isolated security failure and that LabMD likely had at least one other security incident.  Inspection of the Appendix to the complaint reveals that the day sheets were dated between 2007 and March, 2009 (well after the “1718 File” P2P incident).  I contacted LabMD for additional details on what appears to be a breach, but have not yet gotten a response.

Again, it’s not clear to me whether this latter incident should have been reported to HHS, as pre-HITECH, there was no obligation to notify HHS or individuals, although as HHS reminded me today, there was an obligation to mitigate any harm and to have a security incident response plan. But as of right now, we don’t even know when LabMD first learned of the data theft (if that’s what it was), so it’s hard to figure out which laws even applied on a federal level, much less a state level. If they first learned of it after September 23, 2009, then HITECH provisions should apply.

I’ll try to update this post if I can get more details.

Meanwhile, over on DataBreaches.net, I’ve posted the portion of the complaint that addresses LabMD’s alleged security failures, as it provides some guidance to businesses (and HIPAA-covered entities) about what practices may run you afoul of the FTC Act.

Related posts:

  • Digging in their heels: Wyndham and LabMD challenge FTC’s authority in data security cases
  • FTC vs. LabMD hearing starts
  • Meanwhile, back in court: Tiversa sues LabMD for defamation, seeks to block publication of book by LabMD CEO (updated)
  • FTC Files Complaint Against LabMD for Failing to Protect Consumers' Privacy
Category: Health Data

Post navigation

← Paymast’r Services notifies customers after service provider’s site hacked
Errant e-mail creates security breach at MNsure →

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

  • Texas Centers for Infectious Disease Associates Notifies Individuals of Data Breach in 2024
  • Battlefords Union Hospitals notifies patients of employee snooping in their records
  • Alert: Scattered Spider has added North American airline and transportation organizations to their target list
  • Northern Light Health patients affected by security incident at Compumedics; 10 healthcare entities affected
  • Privacy commissioner reviewing reported Ontario Health atHome data breach
  • CMS warns Medicare providers of fraud scheme
  • Ex-student charged with wave of cyber attacks on Sydney uni
  • Detaining Hackers Before the Crime? Tamil Nadu’s Supreme Court Approves Preventive Custody for Cyber Offenders
  • Potential Cyberattack Scrambles Columbia University Computer Systems
  • 222,000 customer records allegedly from Manhattan Parking Group leaked

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

  • 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
  • European Commission publishes its plan to enable more effective law enforcement access to data
  • Sacred Secrets: The Biblical Case for Privacy and Data Protection
  • Microsoft’s Departing Privacy Chief Calls for Regulator Outreach
  • Nestle USA Settles Suit Over Job-Application Medical Questions

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.