How to Keep Cybersecurity in Mind When Negotiating Work-From-Home Vendor Contracts
COVID-19 spurred an overnight surge in demand for work-from-home vendors—from videoconferencing companies to cloud service providers. This caused some companies to rush into service contracts without fully appreciating the privacy and cybersecurity risks involved.
April 22, 2020 at 12:30 PM
5 minute read
COVID-19 spurred an overnight surge in demand for work-from-home vendors—from videoconferencing companies to cloud service providers. This caused some companies to rush into service contracts without fully appreciating the privacy and cybersecurity risks involved.
Indeed, news of the meteoric rise and sudden scrutiny of some videoconferencing vendors shows just how important privacy and cybersecurity issues are when retaining a vendor. Even companies with long-standing contracts in place with these types of vendors may find those contracts outdated and in need of renegotiation in light of the growing demand for privacy legislation.
To consider privacy and cybersecurity appropriately when entering into, or renegotiating, vendor contracts, businesses should answer the following questions during the vendor negotiation process:
- What personal information is the vendor collecting, using, and transferring in providing the service?
- Does the vendor qualify as a "service provider" under the California Consumer Privacy Act, or a "processor" under the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation?
- Does the business need to update its privacy policy to reflect the new vendor relationship or new data flows?
- Does the contract reflect applicable cybersecurity standards and include breach notification provisions?
- Does the contract define the events that may trigger the cancellation of service and provide for a certain level of uptime?
Each question is explained in greater detail below.
Understand how personal information will be collected, used, and transferred.
To start, businesses should understand the depth of access the vendor will have to personal information or other sensitive information, how the vendor will use that information, and whether the vendor will transfer that information to any third parties. Vendors oftentimes default to giving themselves wide latitude with the personal information they process, which can trigger legal obligations for the companies using their services. Businesses should review their vendor contracts and vendors' privacy policies closely and consult with their information security personnel to identify inconsistencies and limit access and use to only that which is appropriate under the circumstances. They should then ensure the vendor contract accurately reflects their understanding of the vendor's use of personal information.
Identify any legal obligations implicated by the contract.
Next, businesses should ask whether employing the vendor triggers any obligations under data privacy laws, like the CCPA or the GDPR.
Under the CCPA, a "sale" of information comes with stringent opt-out and notice obligations, even if no money is exchanged. Transfers to "service providers," however, are exempted. For a vendor to qualify as a "service provider," the transfer of personal information to them must be necessary for a "business purpose," as defined by California law, and the contract must contain certain provisions, such as a restriction on the vendor's ability to sell, retain, use, or disclose the personal information, and a certification that the vendor knows, understands, and will comply with the CCPA.
Under the GDPR, a business is required to enter into more robust contracts known as data processing agreements. The terms that must be included in these contracts depend on whether the vendor qualifies as a "processor," "joint controller," or an independent controller with shared access to the data. It is common for a vendor to purport to be a processor, but act like a controller. Understanding the vendor's data handling practices will help the business identify any inconsistencies and negotiate the appropriate contract.
Review your privacy policy.
Regulators and litigants are increasingly suing businesses that don't accurately disclose their data handling practices, so it is important that businesses update their privacy policies to accurately reflect the personal information collected, used, and shared with any new vendors. In addition, some vendors require that particular terms be included in their contractual partners' privacy policies. If your vendor is one of them, make sure you know it and comply.
Consider the contract's cybersecurity standards and breach notification obligations.
Businesses should evaluate the vendor's cybersecurity practices and think about what will occur in the event of a data breach. This may require an examination of the parties' contractual cybersecurity obligations, including the cybersecurity standards that the parties follow as a matter of course, any industry standards or best practices, and proof in the form of an audit. The contract should also address the parties' obligations in the event of a cybersecurity incident or breach. Compare the definition of a "cybersecurity incident" in the contract to your information security team's understanding of the term. It should be sufficiently broad to include incidents that may not rise to the level of a data breach under state notification laws.
Understand the vendor's service obligations and plan for interruptions.
Many contracts promise uptime levels or percentages of uninterrupted service. As entire workforces work from home, there is unusual stress on technology, making system interruptions more likely. Knowing what the vendor contract promises in advance can help the business plan for interruptions and add certainty in uncertain times.
Steve Blickensderfer and Trish Carreiro are cybersecurity and privacy attorneys at Carlton Fields in Miami.
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 AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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