When Local Courts Get Hit by Cyberattacks, Who's Liable?
Unlike private companies, government agencies that suffer a cyberattack can rely on immunity protections to block most legal actions, lawyers say.
June 03, 2019 at 11:00 AM
3 minute read
Last week, the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania shut down Philadelphia's court website, including its docket tracking and litigation filing features, and blocked court employees from accessing their work email. A city spokesperson said the shutdowns were a precautionary measure after a “virus intrusion” was found on court computers.
Meanwhile, Baltimore is facing its own cybersecurity woes as the city begins to go back online after city employees' work email, the property tax portal, and water bill and parking ticket payment systems were inaccessible for a nearly a month due to a ransomware.
The growing number of local governments targeted by cyberattacks highlights that data breaches are not just the problem of private entities but a threat to the public sector, too.
However, governments operate under different liability than other breached entities. Any civil litigation over a court system's data breach, after all, would most likely be tossed because of the immunity provided to state, federal and municipal governments.
“Cyberattacks on government agencies are increasingly a problem we are seeing, particularly with state and city government that may not have the same defenses to protect against such threats,” said Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Alexander Southwell. Notwithstanding those challenges, Southwell noted federal and state governments have sovereign immunity and typically can't be sued for a data security incident.
“If a court is supposed to file something under seal and a court clerk messes up and puts a filing on the public record, there's no liability for the court system for that disclosure largely because of sovereign immunity,” and that immunity also extends to cyber-induced data breaches, he explained.
Likewise, municipalities have governmental immunity from tort suits, making the road toward legal action after a municipality's data breach just as daunting as prevailing against the state or federal government.
However, Gary Wickert, a Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer insurance trial lawyer and partner, noted that immunity is generally waived when a government agency is acting in a “discretionary” matter, such as when a government's action was deemed “less for the public good for everyone but more proprietary in nature.” Still, Wickert said it was unlikely a court would find a state, federal or municipal's data breach involved a discretionary act.
Although a suit against the government faces an uphill battle, such immunity doesn't extend to a government's outsourced cybersecurity vendors.
“Courts can say to Company X, 'You were responsible for protecting our systems and you failed; we will hold you liable,'” Southwell said.
While the cloak of immunity stretches across a wide assortment of government entities, the cyberthreats aimed at those agencies are only intensifying. Indeed, municipalities' trove of personal and sensitive information and their smaller cybersecurity budgets could lead to increased cyberattacks, said Fenwick & West of counsel Hanley Chew, who previously was vice president at Stroz Friedberg, a cybersecurity and risk management firm.
“I think there's a definite concern that computer systems and networks of local municipalities might be more at risk because they don't necessarily have the funds to properly update their system networks,” Chew noted. “That would be a concern because those municipalities probably have a lot of personal, private information.”
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Family Court 2024 Roundup: Part I
- 2In-House Lawyers Are Focused on Employment and Cybersecurity Disputes, But Looking Out for Conflict Over AI
- 3A Simple 'Trial Lawyer' Goes to the Supreme Court
- 4Clifford Chance Adds Skadden Rainmaker in London
- 5Latham, Kirkland and Paul Weiss Climb UK M&A Rankings
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