Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Data Privacy and Security Considerations for Mobile Health App Developers and Their Counsel

By Angela Matney
August 01, 2022

In the wake of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, issues surrounding the privacy and security of health information have been top of mind for health care providers, consumers, and legislators. The Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the California Attorney General have all released guidance addressing the collection, storage, and use of sensitive information concerning reproductive health, signaling increased enforcement in this area. Proposed federal legislation would impose additional obligations on providers of apps and devices that store health and location data. In light of the evolving legal and regulatory landscape, app developers and their counsel should examine developers' privacy and security practices and take steps to safeguard sensitive data related to reproductive health.

OCR Guidance

OCR recently released guidance aimed at health care providers covered by the HIPAA Privacy Rule and their business associates. It clarifies that while the Privacy Rule permits certain disclosures of protected health information (PHI) without an individual's authorization that are not directly related to health care, these disclosures are subject to certain limitations. In particular, a disclosure of PHI that is required by another law is limited to "a mandate contained in law that compels an entity to make a use or disclosure of PHI and that is enforceable in a court of law," and the entity can only disclose the information that is required to be disclosed under that law. The guidance also addresses disclosures for law enforcement purposes (generally such a disclosure would be a breach of unsecured PHI unless it is made pursuant to "a court order or other mandate enforceable in a court of law"), as well as permitted disclosures made to avert a serious threat to health or safety (generally, these would not include disclosures concerning an individual's interest in or attempt to receive an abortion or other reproductive health care).

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.