Equifax's Liabilities Pile on After Discovery of New Compromised Data
After discovering that 2.4 million of its customers had partial driver's license information stolen, Equifax will likely face renewed questions over the handling of its post-breach internal investigation.
March 07, 2018 at 10:00 AM
5 minute read
|
More than six months after the September 2017 breach at credit reporting agency Equifax Inc., there are still numerous questions surrounding the incident and its repercussions. What role, for instance, did some of its legal executives play in the breach response? How will hundreds of class actions against the company proceed? And how will the breach affect future cybersecurity regulation?
But with significant inquiries, they might have to take a back seat to a far more pressing matter: Just how many Equifax customers had their personal data compromised in the first place?
In a March 1 post on its website, Equifax said it discovered that an additional 2.4 million of its customers had their names and partial driver's license information stolen in the breach. The disclosure adds to the more than 145 million customers who had their Social Security data compromised.
Equifax noted that for the latest discovery, “in the vast majority of cases” the data taken “did not include consumers' home addresses, or their respective driver's license states, dates of issuance, or expiration dates.”
Still, though the stolen information was not as sensitive as Social Security numbers and affected far less than the more than one hundred million already impacted, the disclosure is likely to add another potential liability opening for the already besieged company.
“I think that the delay is going to be factored into the overarching analysis of, did they do enough to protect the extensive consumer data that was entrusted to them, and once there was a discovery, did they do enough to uncover everything?” said Sharon Klein, partner and chair of the privacy, security and data protection practice at Pepper Hamilton.
Marcus Christian, a partner at Mayer Brown and a former executive assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, added that when the initial breach was disclosed in September 2017, there were questions about why it took so long to discover consumer data was stolen.
Now, “this issue could come up again,” he said.
Christian said the government agencies spearheading enforcement actions will likely be examining how Equifax is investigating the breach and trying “to determine whether it was reasonable for this information to be coming out at this time.”
Beyond the government investigations, the disclosure of more breached data may also bolster the numerous class action lawsuits against Equifax. Christian noted that the delay is something attorneys “can marshal as evidence” to further the case that Equifax failed to protect sensitive information and promptly and thoroughly investigate the extent of the incident.
To be sure, it is not yet known whether Equifax's recent disclosure points to a delay in investigating the breach, or represents the reasonable amount of time it would take to uncover additional stolen data in a breach this size.
“I think the scale does matter here,” Christian said, noting that the time it takes to investigate a breach can “depend upon a number of factors, certainly the size of the intrusions, the number of records affected, the types of networks, the number of locations affected, etc.”
It is common, after all, for companies that suffer large breaches to continue to discover additional compromised user data or accounts months after the incident.
Joshua M. Robbins, a partner at Greenberg Gross and chair of the firm's white-collar defense and government investigations department, noted that it is “not terribly unusual or surprising” for more information to trickle out post-breach. The extent of the compromised data, he said, can often “be revealed in an evolving process.”
Equifax has received accolades by hiring cybersecurity firm Mandiant to conduct the investigation into its breach. “That is one of the most well-regarded ones that been involved [in investigations] of a significant number of high-profile events,” Christian said.
Klein called Mandiant “very credible in terms of their third-party cybersecurity forensics,” and noted that it was “a good thing” that Equifax brought them onboard.
But Equifax still faces concerns over how it handled its investigation. In an online statement, House Commerce Committee chairman Greg Walden, R-Oregon, and Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection chairman Bob Latta, R-Ohio, both of whom are part of the congressional investigations into Equifax, called the latest disclosure “deeply concerning.”
They added that the discovery “raises even more questions about the company's total failure in safeguarding consumers' information and providing adequate tools for protection post-breach” and will therefore request a briefing with Mandiant on the subject.
Yet any potential liability Equifax will face because of the recent discovery, whether through greater legal risk or regulatory action, is sure to pale in comparison to the liabilities it already shoulders from the initial breach,
“This particular discovery probably won't have a massive impact on the overall liability,” Robbins said. He added, “It is a relatively smaller number of accounts and the information that was obtained by the outside parties was much more limited and less significant than that of the original breach.”
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 AllRussia-Linked Deepfakes Are Hitting the US Election. Will It Spur Congress to Act?
AI Gives Legal Departments New Leverage to Demand Speed, Efficiency From Law Firms
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
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