Grace Period Expires for Cybersecurity Regulations in NY: What Comes Next?
F. Paul Greene writes: The day has finally arrived for the financial services industry in New York. The new cybersecurity regulations issued by the New York State Department of Financial Services are officially in force, and for the first time, a single state is regulating cybersecurity on a potentially global scale, and it has done so via the regulatory process, not legislative action.
August 25, 2017 at 02:02 PM
16 minute read
The day has finally arrived for the financial services industry in New York. The new cybersecurity regulations issued by the New York State Department of Financial Services are officially in force, after a 180-day grace period that followed the effective date of the regulations, March 1, 2017. These regulations, found at 23 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 500, mark a watershed moment in cybersecurity regulation in the United States. For the first time, a single state is regulating cybersecurity on a potentially global scale, and it has done so via the regulatory process, not legislative action.
These two developments change the landscape of cybersecurity regulation in two very distinct ways. First, by focusing on a global industry regulated within the state, Part 500 magnifies the potential reach of a state regulatory body immensely. Part 500 impacts not only covered financial institutions (defined as Covered Entities), but also third parties located around the world that provide services to these institutions. This is because of the defined Third Party Service Provider Security Policy required by Part 500, under which a Covered Entity must set certain “minimum cybersecurity practices” for every third party service provider doing business with the Covered Entity. It is perhaps because of this potential global reach that DFS attached a two-year phase-in period to the Third Party Service Provider Security Policy requirement.
Second, by choosing the regulatory process to implement Part 500, New York has doubled down on the trend in cybersecurity regulation to infer broad regulatory authority from very general enabling statutes. Case in point, the Federal Trade Commission's extensive efforts to regulate cybersecurity based solely on the general language of the Federal Trade Commission Act. In relation to DFS, the enabling statutes referenced in Part 500 are as silent on cybersecurity as their FTC counterparts. They concern, rather, the department's authority to regulate the financial services industry in New York generally, including its ability to issue fines.
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 AllTrump Mulls Big Changes to Banking Regulation, Unsettling the Industry
Proposed NY Regulation Targets Nonbanks' Equity in Mortgage Lending
Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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