New State Security Breach Notification Laws
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.08.05
Beyond the HIPAA Privacy Rule and the HIPAA Security Rule, health care entities now face potential compliance obligations under an increasing number of state laws requiring notification of security breaches. Following in the footsteps of the California legislature, nineteen other states have now passed security breach notification laws, and there are similar laws pending in eight states whose legislatures are still in session: New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Each of the recently enacted laws, like the California law, generally require entities to notify promptly the residents of that state if the security, confidentiality or integrity of their personal information – defined similarly by most states with some notable exceptions – has been compromised.
Failure to comply may result not only in enforcement by state officials, but could also result in civil lawsuits – some of the new state laws incorporate a private right of action.
|
|
If your organization loses personal data,
|
The best way to avoid disclosure under the new laws is to avoid the breach in the first place. Therefore, we recommend that as a supplement to existing HIPAA Security measures, health care entities adopt and implement any necessary state-specific procedures for handling the security of personal information generally. Health care entities should also prepare a response plan which includes an established method for notifying individuals when and if their personal information is compromised. Furthermore, most states will accept an existing information security policy if it contains notification provisions that meet the timing requirements of the new laws. If you already have an information security policy, you may wish to review it to ensure it comports with new applicable state law.
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.16.26
In a significant decision for government contractors, on April 15, 2026, in Life Science Logistics, LLC v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that bid protesters challenging an agency’s override of an automatic stay of contract performance under the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) need not satisfy the demanding four-factor test traditionally required for preliminary injunctive relief. In so doing, the Federal Circuit clarified that CICA stay override challenges need only demonstrate that the override decision was arbitrary and capricious—nothing more.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.16.26
ROI Tracking as Mens Rea? Novartis Ruling Reframes AKS Pleading Risk
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.15.26
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.15.26
Who Invented That? When AI Writes the Code, Patent Validity Issues May Follow
