Home > Identity Theft > What Are the Data Breach Notification Laws in Your State?

Comments 0 Comments

As prospects of passing consumer-privacy legislation in Congress remain bleak, state lawmakers are picking up the ball and running with it.

At least 32 states have data-breach notification laws on the docket this legislative session, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Most of those bills are tightening and expanding existing laws.

“As we’ve seen now how breaches work, a lot of the states are realizing it’s time to update what for some of them are decade-old statutes,” says Eduard Goodman, chief privacy officer at IDT911.

The Connecticut General Assembly is one of the latest examples. Earlier this month, it changed its breach-notification laws to require businesses to notify victims within 90 days and to provide them with at least a year of identity-theft protection.

“Everyone would be happy if there was a federal law because it would be so much simpler,” says Tom Patterson, a security and privacy expert and vice president of global security solutions at Unisys, a global information-technology company. “But in the absence of that, states are taking matters into their own hands and trying to do things to better protect their citizens.”

Since California enacted the first breach-notification law in the country in 2002, all but three states — Alabama, New Mexico and South Dakota — eventually followed suit. (Alabama and New Mexico have unsuccessfully tried to pass related legislation several times in the past few years.)

Lawmakers Aware of News

The media is one of the drivers behind the momentum. As breaches dominate the news, state lawmakers are taking notice—especially if the news hits close to home.

In Washington state, for example, breaches in recent years have included the Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle and the state’s own Public Disclosure Commission.

“Legislators often react to what’s in the news, and we try to solve that problem,” says state Rep. Zach Hudgins, who sponsored a recently passed bill in the Washington Legislature that expands the state’s breach-notification laws, including to paper records.

“There’s momentum because legislators are getting better educated on the issues, and some of the issues are very complex,” says Hudgins, who has worked at Amazon and Microsoft, and is one of few tech industry professionals in the Legislature.

Wider Definition of Personal Information

Many of the state bills during the current legislative session are expanding the definition of personal information to include things such as biometric and health data. Many states also are requiring notification of the state attorney general, and several are delving into K-12 student data protection.

“These are reactive laws, they’re good in terms of notification, but we also want to see the states setting baseline security standards that companies have to follow,” says Caitriona Fitzgerald, chief technology officer and state policy coordinator for the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).

Only a minority of states have included proactive requirements in their bills. While in some cases that includes a provision for basic encryption, it also could entail something as simple as having a response plan and practicing it several times a year.

One of the challenges is the complexity of the technology, which leads to disagreements over seemingly benign aspects like the definition of cybersecurity.

“It’s a technical issue and legislators struggle to understand it,” Fitzgerald says.

Another challenge — and the reason other privacy and security bills are a much tougher sell than breach notifications — is the idea of the government telling companies how to run themselves. Especially when it involves ever-changing technology and lack of standards.

“To get into prescribing security, you have to have some benchmarks, and everything changes so quickly. It’s a slippery slope and a difficult thing to peg down,” Goodman says.

One Size Doesn’t Fit All

Although many state lawmakers are modeling their bills after other states, the laws still vary widely around the country. As one example, Florida is the only one requiring notification to consumers within 30 days of breach discovery, while other states have much longer deadlines or no deadlines at all.

But Patterson says it’s not a real loss of protection, based on what state you live in, but more of a perception.

“The reality is that most companies, if they have to do something for one state, it’s easier to do it for all 50 states than follow individual rules,” he says.

And some of the changes may not be for the best. Goodman says he’s seeing the response by companies become driven by compliance rather than a desire to do something meaningful for consumers.

“People are getting overnotified to a point where they don’t give it a second thought,” he says. “They’re getting desensitized. It’s a double-edge sword.”

Capitol Hill Not on Bandwagon

The momentum in the state legislatures to tackle data-related bills is not likely to spill over to the federal government, however.

“Congress is much more beholden to special interests and influence,” Goodman says.

And the topic of privacy, in general, is much more sensitive than breach notification. Patterson notes that there’s big business built around personal data because consumers are willing to trade their information for free things like mobile apps, search engines and social networks.

“You’re paying for it by giving up some of your privacy,” he says. “There’s a lot of big money lobbying against privacy.”

Even at the state level, many privacy-related bills die without making it out of committee — as was the case this session in Washington state. Hudgins says if simple bills die in the state senate, it’s easy to see how Congress would stall.

Another challenge is that federal legislation often pre-empts state laws — with the current White House privacy bill as a prime example.

“The pressure the feds get is to water down the increasingly robust laws by passing something federally that’s more predictable and easier to comply with,” Goodman says. “For the most part, that weakens the consumer protection pretty substantially.”

Fitzgerald notes that 432 million online accounts were hacked last year and says the problem should be addressed at both state and federal levels.

“As a baseline, the federal government should pass something,” she says. “But anything that the federal government passes should not pre-empt state laws.”

More on Data Privacy:

Image: iStock

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team