LabMD latest to challenge FTC’s cybersecurity regulation authority
Medical testing laboratory LabMD says that the FTC has made discovery requests that are irrelevant, overly-broad, and oppressive.
December 04, 2013 at 05:43 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Hotelier Wyndham Worldwide Corp. has been engaged in a battle with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for months over whether the commission holds the right to regulate corporate cybersecurity. But now, the FTC faces a similar challenge from another corporation — this time from the medical field.
Medical testing laboratory LabMD Inc. has filed a complaint against the FTC in an administrative law court, challenging the FTC's authority to file an August 2013 complaint against the company for a data breach. In the complaint, the FTC had alleged that sensitive information from 9,000 LabMD users was found on a file sharing network.
In its filing for a protective order (PDF), lawyers for LabMD wrote, “While the FTC may obtain 'discovery to the extent that it may be reasonably expected to yield information relevant to the allegations in the complaint, to the proposed relief, or to the defenses of any respondent' it is prohibited from abusing this power. But this is precisely what FTC has done, for the third-party subpoenas are filled with irrelevant, overly-broad, and oppressive requests and demands for duplicative information that is more easily obtained from LabMD itself.”
However, the FTC argues that its tactics are well within its rights, especially if what LabMD calls “oppressive requests and demands” reveals useful information that could stop future data breaches. “Complaint counsel reasonably expects that its subpoenas to third parties will yield information relevant to the allegations of the Complaint, to the proposed relief, or to LabMD's defenses,” FTC lawyers wrote (PDF) in their response to the LabMD order filing.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the Wyndham and LabMD cases could just be the beginning of corporate challenges to FTC cybersecurity authority. “Both the Wyndham and the LabMD cases show businesses are ready to force this issue with the FTC,” said Craig Newman, partner at Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP, told the WSJ.
Newman later added that, with a Congressional stalemate on how to best handle cybersecurity ongoing, the government may have no other choice but to hope the FTC's authority holds. “Absent leadership from Congress, this patchwork stopgap approach to cybercrime isn't likely to change any time soon,” he said.
The FTC always seems to have its hands tied up in some sort of legal action, like these recent InsideCounsel stories:
Financial firms face FCPA fines for foreign fraternization
Big Data comes to the forefront
Multiple companies trying to mitigate Adobe data breach
New robocall regulations likely to spark deluge of litigation
Recent DOJ and FTC activity focuses on corporate antitrust and trade regulation compliance programs
Hotelier
Medical testing laboratory LabMD Inc. has filed a complaint against the FTC in an administrative law court, challenging the FTC's authority to file an August 2013 complaint against the company for a data breach. In the complaint, the FTC had alleged that sensitive information from 9,000 LabMD users was found on a file sharing network.
In its filing for a protective order (PDF), lawyers for LabMD wrote, “While the FTC may obtain 'discovery to the extent that it may be reasonably expected to yield information relevant to the allegations in the complaint, to the proposed relief, or to the defenses of any respondent' it is prohibited from abusing this power. But this is precisely what FTC has done, for the third-party subpoenas are filled with irrelevant, overly-broad, and oppressive requests and demands for duplicative information that is more easily obtained from LabMD itself.”
However, the FTC argues that its tactics are well within its rights, especially if what LabMD calls “oppressive requests and demands” reveals useful information that could stop future data breaches. “Complaint counsel reasonably expects that its subpoenas to third parties will yield information relevant to the allegations of the Complaint, to the proposed relief, or to LabMD's defenses,” FTC lawyers wrote (PDF) in their response to the LabMD order filing.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the Wyndham and LabMD cases could just be the beginning of corporate challenges to FTC cybersecurity authority. “Both the Wyndham and the LabMD cases show businesses are ready to force this issue with the FTC,” said
Newman later added that, with a Congressional stalemate on how to best handle cybersecurity ongoing, the government may have no other choice but to hope the FTC's authority holds. “Absent leadership from Congress, this patchwork stopgap approach to cybercrime isn't likely to change any time soon,” he said.
The FTC always seems to have its hands tied up in some sort of legal action, like these recent InsideCounsel stories:
Financial firms face FCPA fines for foreign fraternization
Big Data comes to the forefront
Multiple companies trying to mitigate Adobe data breach
New robocall regulations likely to spark deluge of litigation
Recent DOJ and FTC activity focuses on corporate antitrust and trade regulation compliance programs
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 AllWhat to Know About the New 'Overlapping Directorship' Antitrust Development
4 minute readTurning Over Legal Tedium to AI Requires Lots of Unglamorous Work on Front End
6 minute readKhan Defends FTC Tenure, Does Not Address Post-Inauguration Plans
Best Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
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