Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Why the Cannabis Industry Must Address the Unique Challenges of Mandated Data Retention
Not all data breaches are created the same. While every industry has felt their impact in recent years, some industries house data that is sensitive simply by virtue of association with individual consumers. There's no better illustration than the dramatic breach of an online matching service for extramarital affairs in 2015, in which the leak of a simple list of names — relatively non-sensitive data in privacy terms — reportedly resulted in divorces and even suicides.
While extramarital dating services are a far cry from today's mature, legalized cannabis industry, they share this common reality: The mere association of an individual as a cannabis customer can be incredibly sensitive, resulting in potential criminal allegations in certain jurisdictions and moral reprimand from certain corners of American society.
Recently, the cannabis industry felt these effects firsthand when sensitive personal information for thousands of users collected by cannabis software provider THSuite was reportedly exposed. Cannabis-related data is more sensitive than your average dataset: Cannabis remains federally illegal under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, and cultural and moral issues have traditionally dominated the conversation over cannabis legalization in America. And because licensed cannabis operators are heavily regulated and required to retain vast amounts of personal information, the potential impact of a data breach on cannabis businesses is not due to the sensitivity of the information alone.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.