1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Standardizing Federal PII Breach Response: OMB Updates Guidance for Agencies, Contractors, and Grant Recipients

Standardizing Federal PII Breach Response: OMB Updates Guidance for Agencies, Contractors, and Grant Recipients

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.11.17

On January 3, 2017, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued M-17-12, which updates and supersedes 2006 and 2007 OMB memoranda on preparing for and responding to breaches of personally identifiable information (PII) by imposing minimum standards on agencies for incident response programs, training and awareness, reporting, and documentation, coupled with requiring use of a flexible framework to assess and mitigate the risk of harm to individuals potentially affected by a PII breach. While making clear that a PII breach does not necessarily indicate an absence of adequate safeguards, the updated guidance also requires agencies to impose specific requirements, such as encryption, training, and incident-response obligations, on all contractors and subcontractors (at any tier); identifies PII-related requirements for federal grant recipients; and directs the FAR Council to “promptly… create appropriate contract clauses and regulatory coverage.”

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights