Shut Out: Little Recourse for Those Affected by Post-Shutdown Cyber Issues
As federal employees return to work, government agencies will be checking for hacks, according to media reports. But if sensitive data is breached, could the agency be held liable?
January 29, 2019 at 11:00 AM
4 minute read
While the longest partial federal government shutdown in U.S. history ended Monday after 35 days, cybersecurity experts have said the federal shutdown's effects could have significant negative impact that puts national security or personal data at risk.
But, even as data breaches materialize, those affected will have little recourse to seek damages. Lawyers said litigation seeking monetary damages would be hard-fought and perhaps for naught, as the federal government has sovereign immunity, and showing harm may be difficult.
During the shutdown, those tasked with protecting government agencies' cybersecurity were understaffed, according to reports. News of failure to renew government agency websites' certificates—which ensure communication between websites and devices are encrypted and secure—grabbed headlines, with some questioning if this could lead to a higher risk of data breaches.
But Grant Kirkwood, founder of cloud-based solutions provider Unitas Global Cloud, thinks concerns over the risks may be overblown.
“[Expired security certificates are] pretty inconvenient and a little egg on the face, certainly it's pretty embarrassing and it could potentially be used to exploit websites, but they are websites,” said Kirkwood. “They are on the internet and on the domain. The much bigger risk is the stuff not public.”
Kirkwood cited crucial information the government houses behind its firewall regarding U.S. infrastructure and national security.
While it may be unlikely expired certificates on government websites will significantly increase data breaches, U.S. government agencies are no strangers to breach. Several have experienced massive hacks because of their reported lack of response to sophisticated cyberattacks.
In 2015, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management was hacked, leading to 25 million individuals' sensitive data being breached, including their Social Security numbers, residential addresses and copies of their fingerprints.
Unsurprisingly, litigation ensued after OPM announced the massive data breach. Government worker unions National Treasury Employees Union and the American Federation of Government Employees brought two separate class actions that included allegations that OPM violated federal laws prohibiting the government from disseminating individuals personal information.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the suits in 2017, in part, because the federal government has sovereign immunity, and actual injury wasn't shown from the breach. In November 2018, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard the plaintiffs' appeal.
While the lawyers wait for an opinion from the court, lawyers contacted by Legaltech News said the plaintiffs face a difficult battle.
“It would be fair to say that data breach lawsuits against a government agency is definitely an uphill battle,” said Craig Newman, a Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler partner and chair of its privacy data security group. “The added component of sovereign immunity makes it far more complex and challenging for the plaintiffs bar.”
“Normally what you read about most recently is the Marriott breach that was grabbing the headlines,” Newman added. “The plaintiff had to show they had standing, they suffered concrete harm or injury that has been a hotbed of contention in data breach litigation.” Newman noted courts have taken differing positions on the issue of cognizable damage from data breaches.
However the OPM plaintiffs have cited case law they say allows legal remedies for data breaches without actual harm.
“The unions that represent the employees have asserted a number of arguments and are relying on a case, the Attias v. Carefirst case, that says the plaintiffs in that case could plausibly show there is a risk of future injury because of the data breach,” said Kirkland & Ellis partner Erica Williams.
Both lawyers agreed the court of appeal's decision will be watched closely, as it may offer plaintiffs a worthwhile avenue to pursue data breach claims against the government.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Governor Hochul Vetoes Bill Meant to Alleviate Public Notaries' Paperwork in Non-Electronic Acts
- 2AI Expected to Transform Legal Field Even More as Technologies Evolve
- 3Attorneys ‘On the Move’: Morrison Cohen Adds White Collar Partner; Corporate/Securities Partner Joins Olshan
- 4Jury Says $118M: Netlist Wins Another Patent Verdict Against Samsung
- 5Big Law Communications, Media Attorneys Brace for Changes Under Trump
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