Technology: Assessing the risks and obligations of network intrusions
This article provides a framework for identifying and assessing the risks and obligations your company may face as a result of a network intrusion.
April 20, 2012 at 05:30 AM
8 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Our first two articles discussed how to prevent and prepare for a network intrusion and what steps to take immediately upon discovering an intrusion to mitigate harm and re-secure your network. This article provides a framework for identifying and assessing the risks and obligations your company may face as a result of a network intrusion.
Companies may face three types of risks arising out of a network intrusion: legal risks, commercial risks and reputational risks. When your company discovers a network intrusion or other security breach, you should systematically identify, assess and address these risks and obligations so that you can minimize litigation, mitigate damage and protect your company's bottom line.
The legal risks and obligations a company may face as a result of a network intrusion arise from four sources:
- Federal or state statutes
- Regulations applicable to a particular sector or industry
- Contracts
- The common law
A number of federal laws impose reporting and other legal obligations, including:
- The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which requires that companies establish and report annually to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding their internal controls to ensure fair and accurate financial reporting, including data integrity and fraud prevention controls
- Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive trade practices, such as misrepresentations regarding data security
- The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which requires that any entity engaged in financial activities protect the security and confidentiality of customers' nonpublic personal information
- The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act), which requires that health care plans, providers, clearinghouses or any business associate of any of these comply with network security and breach notification requirements
- The Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), which requires companies with consumer information to meet certain security standards in the disposal of such information
- The SEC's cybersecurity disclosure guidance, which sets forth the disclosures publicly traded companies must make regarding cybersecurity risks and cyber incidents
Federal laws also impose data security and, in some cases, breach notification requirements on certain regulated industries including the nuclear energy industry; the maritime, aeronautical, and rail transportation industry; the chemical manufacturing industry; the telecommunications industry and any industry that may bring companies into contact with national defense information. Violations of these provisions can result in regulatory investigation, civil penalty, loss of government contracts and, in certain cases, criminal prosecution.
Nearly all 50 states have adopted breach notification laws requiring companies to notify individuals whose personal identifying information may have been exposed as the result of a network intrusion. State consumer protection laws also often offer a cause of action for litigants who allege harm resulting from a network intrusion.
Many contracts with vendors, customers or affiliates include data security or confidentiality clauses. Your company should review your contracts to determine which may potentially expose you to litigation and whether your company can take steps to mitigate this risk. Finally, common law theories such as implied contract, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty may also present a risk of litigation.
A company that suffers a network intrusion also must consider the risk the intrusion poses to its ongoing business. Increasingly, proprietary technology, information and other intellectual property are a company's most valuable assets. Companies may therefore suffer staggering commercial loss if, as the result of an intrusion, market competitors gain access to such technology and information. In such cases, companies should consider accelerating patent applications associated with such intellectual property and monitoring published patent applications for a period following the intrusion to detect any applications that appear to be based on information misappropriated during the intrusion. A similar strategy can be employed to protect trade secrets.
Reputational harm, though often hard to quantify, can pose the greatest threat to a company. Simply put, if your company's customers and business partners do not perceive your network to be secure, they may not want to entrust your company with their sensitive data. A victim company should assume that a breach will become public and prepare a communications strategy that addresses each of its important relationships and constituencies. Your company should prepare a communications strategy before it suffers an intrusion and should update the strategy as investigation of the intrusion and remediation of the network continue.
Our first two articles discussed how to prevent and prepare for a network intrusion and what steps to take immediately upon discovering an intrusion to mitigate harm and re-secure your network. This article provides a framework for identifying and assessing the risks and obligations your company may face as a result of a network intrusion.
Companies may face three types of risks arising out of a network intrusion: legal risks, commercial risks and reputational risks. When your company discovers a network intrusion or other security breach, you should systematically identify, assess and address these risks and obligations so that you can minimize litigation, mitigate damage and protect your company's bottom line.
The legal risks and obligations a company may face as a result of a network intrusion arise from four sources:
- Federal or state statutes
- Regulations applicable to a particular sector or industry
- Contracts
- The common law
A number of federal laws impose reporting and other legal obligations, including:
- The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which requires that companies establish and report annually to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding their internal controls to ensure fair and accurate financial reporting, including data integrity and fraud prevention controls
- Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive trade practices, such as misrepresentations regarding data security
- The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which requires that any entity engaged in financial activities protect the security and confidentiality of customers' nonpublic personal information
- The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act), which requires that health care plans, providers, clearinghouses or any business associate of any of these comply with network security and breach notification requirements
- The Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), which requires companies with consumer information to meet certain security standards in the disposal of such information
- The SEC's cybersecurity disclosure guidance, which sets forth the disclosures publicly traded companies must make regarding cybersecurity risks and cyber incidents
Federal laws also impose data security and, in some cases, breach notification requirements on certain regulated industries including the nuclear energy industry; the maritime, aeronautical, and rail transportation industry; the chemical manufacturing industry; the telecommunications industry and any industry that may bring companies into contact with national defense information. Violations of these provisions can result in regulatory investigation, civil penalty, loss of government contracts and, in certain cases, criminal prosecution.
Nearly all 50 states have adopted breach notification laws requiring companies to notify individuals whose personal identifying information may have been exposed as the result of a network intrusion. State consumer protection laws also often offer a cause of action for litigants who allege harm resulting from a network intrusion.
Many contracts with vendors, customers or affiliates include data security or confidentiality clauses. Your company should review your contracts to determine which may potentially expose you to litigation and whether your company can take steps to mitigate this risk. Finally, common law theories such as implied contract, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty may also present a risk of litigation.
A company that suffers a network intrusion also must consider the risk the intrusion poses to its ongoing business. Increasingly, proprietary technology, information and other intellectual property are a company's most valuable assets. Companies may therefore suffer staggering commercial loss if, as the result of an intrusion, market competitors gain access to such technology and information. In such cases, companies should consider accelerating patent applications associated with such intellectual property and monitoring published patent applications for a period following the intrusion to detect any applications that appear to be based on information misappropriated during the intrusion. A similar strategy can be employed to protect trade secrets.
Reputational harm, though often hard to quantify, can pose the greatest threat to a company. Simply put, if your company's customers and business partners do not perceive your network to be secure, they may not want to entrust your company with their sensitive data. A victim company should assume that a breach will become public and prepare a communications strategy that addresses each of its important relationships and constituencies. Your company should prepare a communications strategy before it suffers an intrusion and should update the strategy as investigation of the intrusion and remediation of the network continue.
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
© 2025 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 AllExits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute read'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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