FTC’s First-of-Its-Kind Health Breach Notification Rule Enforcement Action

February 14, 2023

Reading Time : 4 min

On February 1, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it had taken enforcement action against prescription drug discount company GoodRx, which agreed to injunctive relief and to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty to settle allegations that the company violated the FTC Health Breach Notification Rule and Section 5 of the FTC Act.

This enforcement action represents the first time the FTC has sought to enforce the FTC Health Breach Notification Rule (the “HBNR”) and is an important example of the FTC’s increasing willingness to wield its authority in the health space. The HBNR, which was first promulgated in 2009 under the Health Information Technology and Economic Health Act of 2009 (“HITECH Act”), focuses on personal health records (PHRs)—electronic records containing individually identifiable health information that are managed, shared and controlled by or primarily for an individual—and requires vendors of PHRs and PHR-related entities to notify affected individuals, the FTC and potentially the media in the event PHR identifiable information is acquired by an unauthorized person as a result of a breach of security. The FTC had issued a request for public comment on the HBNR in May 2020, and the HBNR received renewed attention in late 2021 when the FTC issued a policy statement clarifying that developers of health apps and connected devices are considered “health care providers” for purposes of determining whether data is within the scope of the HBNR, as they “furnish health care services or supplies.” The policy statement also reminded entities that a “breach” is not limited to cybersecurity intrusions or nefarious behavior, and encompasses incidents of unauthorized access, including sharing of covered information without an individual’s authorization. The FTC also issued additional guidance on the HBNR in January 2022. This action against GoodRx is the agency’s first time alleging a violation of the HBNR.

In its complaint, the FTC alleged that GoodRx violated both the HBNR and Section 5 of the FTC Act. Regarding the HBNR, the FTC asserted that GoodRx included third-party trackers on its platform (e.g., SDKs, pixels, etc.) and subsequently shared customer information with third-party advertising companies and advertising platforms without providing notice to consumers or seeking their consent. This information, which included, for example, the name of a drug for which the user had received a coupon, as well as that user’s contact and location information (IP address and zip code), was then shared with certain platforms. The FTC alleged that GoodRx then used third-party platforms to “match specific users to their personal health information and designed campaigns that targeted users with advertisements based on their health information….” In an unusual move, GoodRx publicly responded to the FTC’s announcement of the settlement, emphasizing that it did not admit to any wrongdoing and noting that it had proactively “made updates consistent with [its] commitment to being at the forefront of safeguarding users’ privacy” three years ago, predating the FTC reaching out to the company. The company took particular issue with the FTC’s allegations regarding the HBNR. GoodRx emphasized that this settlement was agreed to in an effort to avoid the expense of protracted litigation.

The complaint also alleged that GoodRx violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by, among other things, sharing personal health information with advertising companies and platforms after promising its users that it would not do so. The FTC claimed that GoodRx misled consumers by displaying a seal at the bottom of its telehealth services homepage attesting to its purported compliance with HIPAA, when in fact GoodRx was not a covered entity subject to HIPAA and its privacy practices did not comply with HIPAA’s requirements.

The GoodRx matter is significant for a number of reasons, beyond being the first enforcement action under the HBNR. In addition to the monetary penalty, the proposed order submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California would set significant limits on GoodRx’s data practices and require GoodRx to establish certain related policies and procedures. Notably, among other things, the proposed order would (i) prohibit GoodRx from sharing health information with third parties for advertising purposes, with limited exceptions; (ii) restrict GoodRx from disclosing user health information to third parties for other purposes without first obtaining the user’s affirmative express consent; and (iii) require GoodRx to limit how long it retains personal and health information through a data retention schedule that is publicly posted. The proposed order would require GoodRx to establish a comprehensive privacy program that includes strong safeguards to protect consumer data and to institute mandatory annual privacy training for employees. GoodRx would be required to allow an independent auditor to review the program every two years for 20 years, and would be subject to detailed recordkeeping requirements.

In its blog post discussing the settlement, the FTC used this opportunity to caution other companies in the industry, emphasizing that transparency with customers regarding information-sharing practices is crucial. The FTC also warned that health app companies handling health data should take special care to protect this information, establish contractual boundaries with third parties regarding the use of information and monitor data flows to these parties.

If you have any questions, please contact a member of the Akin health regulatory or cybersecurity, privacy and data protection teams.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Data Dive

October 17, 2024

During the course of any lending transaction, lenders will conduct a due diligence review of the borrower, including reviewing any relevant “know-your-customer” information. In the context of a fund finance transaction, this due diligence is likely to include a review of fund organizational documents, subscription agreements and side letters, if any, from the fund’s investors. Providing this information to lenders is an essential and practical aspect of incurring any fund-level financing, and is often expressly permitted by a fund’s governing documentation. Especially in the context of a subscription credit facility, where investor commitments and the related right to collect capital contributions are the primary source of repayment for the loan, a lender will need to see information that could potentially include sensitive or confidential information about investors.

...

Read More

Data Dive

September 17, 2024

Following the publication of the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act or Act) on 12 July 2024, there are now a series of steps that various EU bodies need to take towards implementation. One of the first key steps is in relation to the establishment of codes of practice to “contribute to the proper application” of the AI Act.

...

Read More

Data Dive

August 6, 2024

On July 30, 2024, the Senate passed the Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act (S. 2073) via an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 91-3 shortly before departing for the August recess.

...

Read More

Data Dive

July 18, 2024

On 12 July 2024, the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act or Act) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (EU), marking the final step in the AI Act’s legislative journey. Its publication triggers the timeline for the entry into force of the myriad obligations under the AI Act, along with the deadlines we set out below. The requirement to ensure a sufficient level of AI literacy of staff dealing with the operation and use of AI systems will, for example, apply to all providers and deployers on 2 February 2025.

...

Read More

Data Dive

July 18, 2024

On June 18, 2024, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a settlement with R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company (RRD) for alleged internal control and disclosure failures following a ransomware attack in 2021. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, the business communications and marketing services provider agreed to pay a civil penalty of over $2.1 million to settle charges alleging violations of Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(a).1

...

Read More

Data Dive

June 11, 2024

In May, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued updated recommendations for security controls for controlled unclassified information (CUI) that is processed, stored or transmitted by nonfederal organizations using nonfederal systems, (NIST Special Publication 800-171 (SP 800-171), Revision 3). These security requirements are “intended for use by federal agencies in contractual vehicles or other agreements that are established between those agencies and nonfederal organizations.”1 While these new controls are only applicable to nonfederal entities that agree to comply with the new issuance, Revision 3 signals the next phase of expected security for government contractors.

...

Read More

Data Dive

May 31, 2024

On May 21, 2024, the European Union finalized the adoption of the groundbreaking EU Artificial Intelligence Act, a comprehensive and sector-agnostic legislation that extends globally. This 420-page Act aims to regulate the deployment and development of AI systems, categorizing them into high-risk and low-risk, and even banning certain types of AI. The Act emphasizes trust, transparency, and accountability in AI usage, promoting the safe integration of AI technologies. This legislation sets a potential global benchmark for AI regulation, although its complexity may pose interpretative and implementation challenges for stakeholders. We set out the key provisions below.

...

Read More

Data Dive

May 30, 2024

On May 17, 2024, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed into law S.B. 205, a pioneering piece of legislation aimed at regulating high-risk AI systems. This new law, set to take effect on February 1, 2026, introduces stringent requirements for AI developers and deployers, focusing on risk management and the prevention of algorithmic discrimination. This legislation marks a significant step in state-level AI regulation, potentially setting a precedent similar to the impact of GDPR on privacy laws.

...

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.