Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Credit Card Information Security Issues in Franchising
Data breaches at Target, Home Depot, Neiman Marcus and P.F. Chang's are front-page reminders of the vulnerability of customer payment information in the retail sector. Verizon estimated that “74% of attacks on retail, accommodation, and food services companies target payment card information.” In Federal Trade Commission v. Wyndham Worldwide, Case No. 13-cv-01887 (D. N.J. 2014), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought suit claiming that a franchisor's alleged failures to maintain reasonable security measures constituted unfair and deceptive practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act. Although the FTC is clear about what the franchisor allegedly did wrong (failed to employ commonly used methods of data protection, such as complex passwords, network inventories and firewalls), little guidance exists from the FTC to help franchisors determine what standards are reasonable.
What We Can Learn From'Credit Card Companies
In 2006, five major credit card brands (Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover Financial Services and JCB International) formed the Payment Card Industry (PCI) Security Standards Council to address issues of credit card payment security. The security council ultimately promulgated the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS). PCI-DSS is a set of standards developed to ensure the security of all credit card payment information handled by merchants. The standards are intended to apply to any business that processes, transmits, or otherwise handles credit card transactions. Accordingly, these standards are applicable and relevant for franchisors and franchisees alike. Although all companies that accept credit cards are required to be PCI-compliant, a significant percentage of businesses fail to understand their PCI-DSS obligations. For franchise systems, the consequence of a data breach involving credit cards, even if limited to an individual franchise, can be very damaging both in dollars and brand good will. And that threat will only increase. The August 2013 Nilson Report estimated that total global payment-card fraud losses were $11.3 billion in 2012.
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.