Regulatory: Follow the leader when it comes to preventing data breaches
According to a study by the Ponemon Institute, 39 percent of data breaches in 2010 involved third-party service providers such as outsourcers, contractors, consultants and business partners.
January 18, 2012 at 05:23 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
According to a study by the Ponemon Institute, 39 percent of data breaches in 2010 involved third-party service providers such as outsourcers, contractors, consultants and business partners. As many companies have learned, data breaches are expensive, both in terms of actual costs as well as potential legal liability and negative publicity. An important data breach prevention measure is to have in place effective safeguards to protect personal information and to require your company's vendors to do the same. In addition to being sound risk mitigation, it may be required by law.
The Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation established what have become known as the Massachusetts data security regulations with the aim of addressing privacy breach risks posed by vendor relationships, among other things. The regulations, which went into effect March 1, 2010, require any company, regardless of location, size or industry, that possesses the personal information of a Massachusetts resident to adopt and implement a comprehensive written information security program (WISP). A WISP must address the technical, physical and administrative safeguards for the protection of personal information.
As defined by the regulations, personal information means an individual's first name and last name or first initial and last name in combination with any one or more of the following:
- Social Security number
- Driver's license state-issued identification card number
- Financial account number or credit or debit card number, with or without any required security code, access code, personal identification number or password, that would permit access to the financial account
Although the regulations only apply to companies possessing the personal information of Massachusetts residents, a growing number of companies have tailored their WISP to the requirements under the Massachusetts regulations to cover all the personal information they maintain. To reduce the risk of data breaches involving third-party service providers, the Massachusetts regulations require companies to take reasonable measures to select vendors that are capable of maintaining appropriate security measures to protect personal information. In addition, companies must enter into contracts with vendors to require them to implement and maintain security measures in compliance with the Massachusetts regulations. All new contracts effective after March 1, 2010 must meet this requirement. For contracts entered into before March 1, 2010, companies are deemed to be in compliance with this requirement if they are amended by March 1, 2012.
Vendor contracts and amendments should contain several key provisions, including representations, warranties and covenants providing the following:
- The vendor must comply with the Massachusetts regulations and other applicable federal and state privacy and data security requirements
- The company has the right to evaluate or audit the vendor periodically to ensure its compliance with applicable laws
- The vendor must contractually require any of its vendors to comply with applicable privacy and data security requirements
- The vendor must provide the company with immediate notification of an actual or potential breach involving personal information shared with the vendor
- The vendor shall return or appropriately destroy all of the company's personal information in its possession at the termination of the contract
- The vendor shall indemnify the company and hold it harmless against any and all losses, damages and expenses resulting from a data breach caused by the vendor or its vendors.
Although these requirements only apply to companies possessing the personal information of Massachusetts residents, companies that are not within the scope of the Massachusetts regulations should consider amending their contracts with vendors to include the provisions outlined above, as it is good general practice and may help to prevent data breaches.
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 AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
- 1Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 2Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
- 3Jackson Lewis Leaders Discuss Firm's Innovation Efforts, From Prompt-a-Thons to Gen AI Pilots
- 4Trump's DOJ Files Lawsuit Seeking to Block $14B Tech Merger
- 5'No Retributive Actions,' Kash Patel Pledges if Confirmed to FBI
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