Target, University of Maryland Testify on Data Breaches; Congress, FTC and SEC Continue Inquiries

Mar 26, 2014

Reading Time : 3 min

By: Francine E. Friedman, Matthew C. Thomas (Senior Public Policy Specialist)

UM reported that it learned of a “cyber intrusion” on the morning of March 15; subsequently, UM contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) who, in conjunction with University Police and IT staff, mitigated the breach. They reported that the FBI informed UM that the intrusion resulted in no public release of any information and no damage to the institution, except for the release of personal data of one senior University official, who was notified. UM was the victim of a more significant data breach on February 18, 2014, during which a database containing 309,079 records of faculty, staff, students and affiliated personnel was compromised. The records included names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and University identification numbers. University officials have said the two breaches are unrelated.

The focus of the hearing was to “examine the risks these recent data breaches pose for consumers, the current lack of federal data security protections, and several data security bills pending before the Senate Commerce Committee that would establish such federal standards.”  In his opening statement, Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) strongly criticized Target for not taking adequate steps to secure and protect customers’ data. “I think we can all agree that if Target – or any other company – is going to collect detailed information about its customers, they need to do everything possible to protect it from identity thieves. It is now well known that Target fell far short of doing this.” Going further, Chairman Rockefeller said that “it is increasingly frustrating to me that organizations are resisting the need to invest in their security systems. Target must be a clarion call to businesses, both large and small, that it’s time to invest in some changes.” The changes he suggested would include:

  • Directing the FTC to circulate rules requiring companies to adopt reasonable, but strong, security protocols.
  • Requiring companies to notify affected consumers in the wake of a breach.
  • Authorizing both the FTC and state attorneys general to seek civil penalties for violations of the law.

In his closing, Chairman Rockefeller noted that Snapchat, another company that suffered a data breach in the past few months, declined an invitation to testify. “Finally, I would be remiss if I did not publicly note that representatives from the company Snapchat declined my invitation to testify today. When people refuse to testify in front of this Committee, instinct tells me they are hiding something. In this instance, on this subject, I think it warrants closer scrutiny.”

Ranking Member John Thune (R-SD) took a more balanced stance in his statement, noting that data breaches happen both in the private sector and within federal agencies. He stated that he supports a uniform federal breach notification standard to replace the patchwork of laws in 46 states and the District of Columbia.

FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez delivered testimony similar to that given in the past at other data breach hearings, covering existing FTC authority and efforts to combat breaches, as well as providing guidance on how to secure consumer data. She reiterated her support for federal legislation that would strengthen data security standards and require companies to notify consumers of a breach. Both representatives from Target and UM detailed the steps they are taking to mitigate the damage from their respective breaches and strengthen their security systems.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also held a Cybersecurity Roundtable today to discuss the cybersecurity landscape, public company disclosure, market systems and market participants with representatives from the SEC and other agencies, academia, industry and law firms participating.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.