Up in Smoke? Burgeoning Legalized Cannabis Industry Faces Unique Cyber Risks
Some states' seed-to-sale tracking and identification requirements make the nascent legalized cannabis industry easy prey for hackers.
November 21, 2019 at 11:30 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
All companies face cybersecurity threats, but the legalized cannabis industry's storage of personally identifiable information and reliance on seed-to-sale tracking software can place it firmly within hackers' crosshairs.
To be sure, despite currently being prohibited from storing cash in banks, some cannabis entities do process valuable personally identifiable information (PII).
"Just because there's more physical cash than electronic transactions, doesn't necessarily make these companies less of a target for hackers," wrote Robinson & Cole associate and data privacy and cybersecurity associate Kathryn Rattigan in an email. "Most of the point-of-sale systems automatically report to the state's compliance tracking system, which might include the individual's name, birth date and contact information based on the scanning of a driver's license or state-issued ID card."
Rattigan noted such data could be targeted by cybercriminals, including "ethical hackers" who don't agree with the legalization of cannabis and seek to expose consumers.
Indeed, there have already been hacks of some cannabis platforms containing personal data, including Pennsylvania-based seed-to-sale software MJ Freeway's reported hack in 2018 and security breach in 2017.
When any vendor is under siege, clients' work may be disturbed, but this disruption may be more acute in the cannabis industry given some states' required usage of seed-to-sale software.
"If MJ Freeway goes down, which it does, all marijuana sells comes to a grinding halt," said Steve Schain, a senior attorney at cannabis and hemp law firm Hoban Law Group.
While such an operational disturbance is generally out of clients' hands, Harris Bricken data security attorney Griffen Thorne said most legalized marijuana companies have a higher cyber risk for two reasons. For one thing, many of the startups aren't investing in cybersecurity, he said. In addition, cannabis "companies may be more unwilling to report incidents to the FBI or local law enforcement compared to other industries, that may be a thought cyber attackers have."
Still, while cannabis manufacture Natura Life + Science business development director Manndie Tingler noted that stolen PII is a concern, she said the cannabis industry's top threat is copyright infringers.
"A lot of this is right now coming in the form of a lot of people having counterfeit products including batch number falsification and stealing their copyrighted material and a lot of it is coming from the illicit market," Tingler said.
As cannabis companies attempt to combat bad actors, most won't find data privacy or cybersecurity guidance or requirements in the laws permitting the sale or use of marijuana. Instead, companies are regulated by states' data breach notification laws and possibly the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) when it goes into effect Jan. 1, 2020, if they fall under that law's requirements.
"I think a lot of these companies are moving toward digital, at least some part of the company, and most likely the CCPA will apply to them," Thorne noted.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllContract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
2 minute readFlorida-Based Law Firms Start to Lag, As New York Takes a Bigger Piece of Deals
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250