Deal Breakers: The Importance of Privacy and Security Due Diligence in Transactions
Jennifer Daniels of Blank Rome writes: Cybersecurity and data privacy risks have been, and remain, a top concern for companies across industries, so it is not surprising that companies are increasingly conducting diligence specifically to address those risks in connection with transactions.
June 06, 2017 at 12:00 AM
10 minute read
Conducting due diligence in an acquisition or investment transaction is intended to allow the buyer to kick the tires of the target. Diligence allows the buyer to identify, analyze, and manage risks, some of which are known to the target and some of which the target may not even know about. Cybersecurity and data privacy risks have been, and remain, a top concern for companies across industries, so it is not surprising that companies are increasingly conducting diligence specifically to address those risks in connection with transactions. Buying a business that suffers a data breach can affect a company's reputation, and result in costs to investigate, contain, and mitigate harm, not to mention the cost of lawsuits, distracting government investigations, regulatory fines, and the impact to normal business operations. Further, acquirers may value information assets based on the use of such assets for certain purposes that turn out to be prohibited based on the promises made by the target to consumers or business partners or under applicable laws. Accordingly, conducting cybersecurity and data privacy diligence is critical to avoid unwanted surprises.
Importance of Cybersecurity Diligence
Recent news shows the impact that security breaches can have on acquisition transactions. Verizon announced its planned takeover bid for Yahoo in July 2016, with a reported $4.83 billion merger price. However, in August 2016, Yahoo's systems were hacked. Over a billion Yahoo's user accounts were affected by a series of security breaches. The deal had been expected to close in first quarter 2017, but was delayed so Yahoo could assess the impact of the breach and meet closing conditions. The company said it was cooperating with federal, state, and foreign government agencies seeking information about the hack, including the FTC and the SEC. In early 2017, the parties came to an agreement on how to address the breach so the deal could move forward: the purchase price would be slashed by $350 million; the companies would split certain legal and regulatory liabilities stemming from the breaches, including from the non-SEC government investigations; and Yahoo would retain liability for any third-party litigation relating to the breaches.A 2016 Survey Report prepared by NYSE Governance Services and Veracode, “Cybersecurity and the M&A Due Diligence Process,” found that 52 percent of companies would consider acquiring a company that recently suffered a high-profile data breach, but only at a significantly lower value, and 22 percent of companies said such a breach would deter them entirely from completing the transaction. Of the directors and officers surveyed, 85 percent said the discovery of a major security vulnerability of the target would likely or very likely affect their final decision to acquire.
Due diligence can help companies to determine the risk of a breach, whether a breach is ongoing, and whether the company's processes will be resilient in the face of a breach.
Importance of Data Privacy Diligence
Data privacy due diligence is similarly important where the target company processes personally identifiable information (PII), particularly sensitive PII like health information, Social Security numbers, financial information, and credit card data. Companies often make promises to consumers and customers about how they will handle PII, and the law generally requires that those companies keep those promises. For example, if a company's online privacy statement tells consumers that their PII will never be shared with or sold to a third party, there is risk that just buying the PII assets of the business as part of an acquisition will violate that promise because an asset acquisition necessarily involves the transfer of PII to a new legal entity. Even in a stock purchase where the transaction does not result in a change of the legal entity collecting and holding the data, the buyer must make sure that it can live with the privacy promises made by the seller regarding the data. If, for example, a pharmaceutical company collects data for a clinical trial pursuant to consent forms signed by the study participants, and those consent forms say that the PII collected will only be used to perform the study and for no other purpose, then a buyer needs to understand that it may be limited in its ability to use the PII for other purposes, like for an unrelated research study.
The example that the FTC made of Facebook and WhatsApp illustrates some of these concerns. In 2014, the FTC notified Facebook and WhatsApp about their obligation to protect the privacy of their users in light of Facebook's then-proposed acquisition of WhatsApp. WhatsApp had made clear privacy promises to consumers, and both companies had told consumers that after the acquisition they would continue the current privacy practices of WhatsApp. The FTC warned that, if WhatsApp failed to honor these promises after the transaction, both companies could be in violation of §5 of the FTC Act for deceptive trade practices. So, before making material changes to how they use data collected from WhatsApp subscribers prior to closing, the FTC said that the companies must get affirmative consent from the subscribers. And, for changes that would only apply to subscriber data collected after the closing, the FTC said that subscribers should be given the opportunity to opt-out of such prospective changes.
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 AllThe Kids Online Safety Act Threatens Free Speech and Opens the Door to Political Weaponization
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Midsize Firm Bressler Amery Absorbs Austin Boutique, Gaining Four Lawyers
- 2Bill Would Allow Californians to Sue Big Oil for Climate-Linked Wildfires, Floods
- 3LinkedIn Suit Says Millions of Profiles Scraped by Singapore Firm’s Fake Accounts
- 4Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Lawsuit Over FBI Raid at Wrong House
- 5What It Takes to Connect With Millennial Jurors
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