Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Losing Customer Data Means Losing Customers, Period
To see the negative financial impacts of a breach of sensitive customer data, look no further than Target Corp., where a holiday-season data breach of up to 110 million credit and debit card accounts cost the company $61 million to manage in the fourth quarter of 2013, and will almost certainly keep costing for months to come. See, “Online Extra Cost of Target Data Breach: $61M ' So Far,” e-Commerce Law & Strategy, March 2014. Target was also hit with other expenses likely tied to the breach, but less directly. For example, net income dropped 46% in the last quarter of 2013, compared with the same quarter in 2012.
A new report, “Avoidable Collateral Damage from Corporate Data Breaches: Assessing the Effects of Data Breach Remediation on Financial Institutions, Healthcare Providers and Merchants” (lite registration required), supports the idea that becoming the next Target can be toxic for companies, particularly those in the finance, health-care and retail sectors, which usually collect and store customers' personally identifiable information (PII). The study, commissioned by sensitive data management solution provider Identity Finder, with research by Javelin Strategy & Research, also finds that many companies are offering identity protection services (IDPS) to customers in the wake of breaches, but that these might not be terribly effective tools.
The report shows that a data breach can discourage a significant number of customers from coming back to the business that has been hacked. After a retail data breach, 33% of respondents said they would avoid doing business with that retailer again. This number reached 30% for customers of health-care providers and 24% for customers of financial institutions or credit card issuers. “To see that such a high percentage of consumers have such a negative reaction and would change vendors ' even health-care vendors ' so readily did come as a surprise to us,” Aaron Titus, chief privacy officer and general counsel of Identity Finder, told e-Commerce Law & Strategy's ALM sibling, CorpCounsel.com.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.