Cybersecurity and Individual Liability: 'U.S. v. Sullivan' and the Criminalization of a Cyber Attack Response
The prosecution of Sullivan cuts against the grain of prevailing regulation.
May 06, 2022 at 02:20 PM
10 minute read
White Collar CrimeCyberattacks, data breaches, ransomware—these are now the stuff of corporate and boardroom discussion. Hardly a day goes by without a reminder of the centrality of cybersecurity to business and government. In one of many recent headlines, the country's largest oil and gas pipeline system, Colonial Pipeline, was the target of a cyberattack in 2021 and a demand for a $4.4 million ransom, which was paid with the support of federal authorities. War in the Ukraine has heightened already intense concern about the vulnerability of critical infrastructure to cyberattacks.
To date, cybersecurity has generally been viewed as an organizational responsibility, and data breaches similarly have been treated as organizational weaknesses or failures. States have enacted laws that require organizations to report incidents of data theft "expeditiously" to state authorities and individuals adversely affected. In addition, public companies are required to disclose information about data breaches when such information is material to investors.
Against this backdrop of organizational responsibility, the Department of Justice has brought a noteworthy criminal case against an individual for his personal response to a corporate data breach. In United States v. Sullivan, Case No. 3:20-cr-00337-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the defendant, a former employee of Uber Technologies (Uber), has been charged with wire fraud and other offenses that arise from his handling of a ransomware attack against Uber in 2016. While Uber settled potential civil charges with state attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Uber was not charged criminally.
This content has been archived.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 AllManhattan Prosecutors Say They Will Oppose Efforts by Trump Legal Team to Dismiss Case
Jury That Convicted Ex-Sen. Robert Menendez Accidentally Saw Improper Evidence, Prosecutors Say
New York Judge Delays Decision on Whether to Set Aside Trump Criminal Case
Donald Trump's Headed Back to the White House. But First, a Sentencing?
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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