FTC proposes new privacy framework

In a highly anticipated move, on December 1, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released its report and recommendations regarding protecting personal information gathered online. The FTC recommended moving away from self-regulation by the industry towards a more European, “privacy-by-design” approach, which offers a much greater degree of protection to individuals, including by requiring businesses collecting data online to build privacy protections into their everyday business practices and retain data on consumer preferences and online browsing activity only as long as needed and deleting data on a regular basis.  

While this privacy framework may not be enforceable on its own, FTC’s recommendations therein are expected to be the basis of a broader legislative action. A comprehensive data privacy bill has been circulating in Congress for some time now. For example, Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL), Rep. Rich Boucher (D-VA), Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and Senators Mark Pryor (D-AR) and John Kerry (D-MA) have been working on legislation regulating and protecting an individual’s personal information. In fact, according to Rep. Joe Barton, a key figure on the Energy and Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, privacy legislation is expected to advance despite the takeover of the House by the Republicans.

You can view the full report here.

You can view FTC's press release here.

"Agency Proposes ‘Do Not Track’ Option for Web Users," New York Times (December 1, 2010).

Rite Aid settles FTC and OCR privacy charges

The Rite Aid Corporation, the third largest pharmacy chain in the United States, reached a major settlement with both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and HHS's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) regarding charges that Rite Aid violated federal privacy and security laws and regulations by failing to keep its customers' and employees' data safe. 

Rite Aid employees were reported to discard prescriptions and pill bottles containing sensitive patient data into the dumpsters behind various Rite Aid pharmacies, which were easily accessible to the public.  Such practices violate the HIPAA Privacy Rule, which requires covered entities to safeguard the privacy of patient information, even when such information is being destroyed.  Rite Aid's actions may also violate the company's own promises to their customers regarding keeping their health information private and secure (this broken promise being the basis for FTC's charges).

 

In addition, OCR and FTC found that Rite Aid:

  • failed to implement adequate policies and procedures to appropriately safeguard patient information during the disposal process;
  • failed to adequately train employees on how to dispose of such information properly;
  • failed to employ a reasonable process for discovering and remedying risks to personal information; and
  • did not maintain a sanctions policy for members of its workforce who failed to properly dispose of patient information.

Pursuant to their settlement with HHS, Rite Aid agreed to pay HHS a cool $1 million and agreed to implement a strong corrective action program (lasting 3 years) which includes:

  • Revising and distributing its policies and procedures regarding disposal of protected health information and sanctioning workers who do not follow them;
  • Training workforce members on these new requirements;
  • Conducting internal monitoring; and
  • Engaging a qualified, independent third-party assessor to conduct compliance reviews and render reports to HHS.

Finally, Rite Aid has also agreed to external independent assessments of its pharmacy stores’ compliance with the FTC consent order, which will be in place for 20 years.

FTC and OCR have previously filed charges against CVS Caremark, another major pharmacy chain which was reported to engage in similar violations to Rite Aid's.  

The current economic conditions require most organizations to do more with less. The unfortunate end result is that long term projects, such as major privacy and security compliance reviews and overhauls get postponed and overlooked.  Rite Aid and CVS cases should remind covered entities and other organizations responsible for keeping patient information safe that neglect or procrastination with regard to privacy policies and practices can lead to major fines, PR embarrassments and excessive compliance and legal costs. 

It is also key to remember that your organization must comply with its own privacy policies and procedures -- otherwise, FTC can charge your organization for "false promises," as was the case with Rite Aid.  In order to comply with such policies, however, your organization must train the staff about the critical importance of privacy.  Without such training, all the policies and procedures will be rendered entirely ineffective.

You can read the full OCR press release by clicking here.

You can read the full FTC press release by clicking here.

FTC Delays Enforcement of the Red Flags Rule

Upon request from members of Congress, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has once again pushed back the enforcement of the Red Flags Rule, this time until December 31, 2010.  This is the fifth such delay by the FTC.  Via FTC press release:

The Rule became effective on January 1, 2008, with full compliance for all covered entities originally required by November 1, 2008. The Commission has issued several Enforcement Policies delaying enforcement of the Rule. Most recently, the Commission announced in October 2009 that at the request of certain Members of Congress, it was delaying enforcement of the Rule until June 1, 2010, to allow Congress time to finalize legislation that would limit the scope of business covered by the Rule. Since then, the Commission has received another request from Members of Congress for another delay in enforcement of the Rule beyond June 1, 2010.

The Commission urges Congress to act quickly to pass legislation that will resolve any questions as to which entities are covered by the Rule and obviate the need for further enforcement delays. If Congress passes legislation limiting the scope of the Red Flags Rule with an effective date earlier than December 31, 2010, the Commission will begin enforcement as of that effective date.

We have recently reported on the AMA and other medical associations suing the FTC over applicability of the Rule to healthcare providers.  There was no mention of the AMA's claims or law suit in the press release.

You can read the full press release here.

"FTC Extends Enforcement Deadline for Identity Theft Red Flags Rule," FTC Press Release (May 28, 2010).

Medical associations sue FTC over Red Flags Rule

Just days prior to the latest enforcement deadline of the Red Flags Rule ("RFR"), medical and osteopathic associations sued the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over the applicability of RFR's identity theft prevention requirements to their member organizations.  FTC is to begin enforcement of the Rule on June 1, 2010.  Among other claims, medical associations are seeking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the FTC from defining healthcare providers as "creditors" under FACTA.  According to Health Data Management:

'The worst part is, I think, from a strictly ethical point of view, that you have to approach every new patient with suspicion about their identity,' said AMA spokesman Robert Mills. 'That violates every precept of the physician-patient relationship; the FTC is asking doctors to violate their role as trusted healer and counselor.'

The physician groups say that the rule requires them to set up identity theft prevention and detection programs, which aren't necessary, and said the FTC was 'arbitrary and capricious' in extending the application of the law to them. Also, the extension of the Red Flag Rule to doctors would do nothing to improve care, the physician groups say.

<...> According to the lawsuit, complying with the Red Flags Rule 'imposes significant burdens on physicians, particularly sole practitioners, and those practicing in small groups.'

Since most personal health information is already protected by HIPAA, including as modified by the HITECH Act, medical associations argue that the additional privacy safeguards imposed by RFR are simply not necessary.  In addition, the American Bar Association succeeded in excluding lawyers from RFR requirements.  Physicians argue that the exemption of lawyers should apply to healthcare professionals.

We will keep you posted regarding any developments in this case.  However, until the court rules on the AMA's motion, healthcare organizations should remember the June 1, 2010 enforcement date for the Red Flags Rule.  Click here for more information regarding the RFR requirements, but keep in mind the new enforcement date of June 1, 2010.

"Lawsuit: Red Flags Rule Violates Doctor/Patient Relationship," Health Data Management (May 21, 2010).

Facebook's privacy struggles

The Wall Street Journal devoted the front page of its "Marketplace" section to a report on Facebook's struggles with privacy advocates, regulators like FTC, and, at times, even its own employees.

The company can't afford not to act. The Federal Trade Commission is taking a close look at how online social networks are using people's data, and people close to the matter say it is increasingly focused on Facebook. <...>

A group of senators led by Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) called on Facebook to roll back the changes and more than a dozen privacy groups lodged a complaint with the FTC on grounds that Facebook was displaying user information without their consent.

Facebook faces a herculean task of keeping personal information of its 500 million subscribers private and secure.  Privacy is a major stumbling block for this young company, which hopes to earn billions in ad revenues by using the private data it collects from its subscribers. 

Facebook must clearly articulate to its subscribers the privacy risks and security settings available to them; but, ultimately -- as the clever someecard, above, suggests -- the best way to ensure the privacy of one's personal information is not to share it with the world, via Facebook or any other online social networking site.

"Facebook Grapples With Privacy Issues,"  Wall Street Journal (May 19, 2010).

FTC delays enforcement of the Red Flags Rule till June 2010

In a fairly predictable move, the Federal Trade Commission delayed enforcement of the Red Flags Rule until June 1, 2010, for financial institutions and creditors subject to enforcement by the FTC.  According to the FTC press release, the Commission decided to extend the enforcement deadline at the request of the members of U.S. Congress.

However, in the press release, the FTC reminded us about the progress its staff has made in the last year in providing businesses subject to the Red Flags Rule with sufficient guidance and materials:

The Commission staff has continued to provide guidance to entities within its jurisdiction, both through materials posted on the dedicated Red Flags Rule Web site (www.ftc.gov/redflagsrule), and in speeches and participation in seminars, conferences and other training events to numerous groups. The Commission also published a compliance guide for business, and created a template that enables low risk entities to create an identity theft program with an easy-to-use online form. FTC staff has published numerous general and industry-specific articles, released a video explaining the Rule, and continues to respond to inquiries from the public. To assist further with compliance, FTC staff has worked with a number of trade associations that have chosen to develop model policies or specialized guidance for their members.

You can find the full text of the press release here.

"FTC Extends Enforcement Deadline for Identity Theft Red Flags Rule," FTC Press Release (October 30, 2009).

FTC Issues Final Breach Notification Rule for Electronic Health Information

Pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued the final rule regarding notification requirements for breaches of electronic health information by vendors of personal health records and certain affiliated entities:

The rule applies to both vendors of personal health records – which provide online repositories that people can use to keep track of their health information – and entities that offer third-party applications for personal health records. These applications could include, for example, devices such as blood pressure cuffs or pedometers whose readings consumers can upload into their personal health records. Consumers may benefit by using these innovations, but only if they are confident that their health information is secure and confidential.

<...>

The Final Rule requires vendors of personal health records and related entities to notify consumers following a breach involving unsecured information. In addition, if a service provider to one of these entities has a breach, it must notify the entity, which in turn must notify consumers. The Final Rule also specifies the timing, method, and content of notification, and in the case of certain breaches involving 500 or more people, requires notice to the media. Entities covered by the rule must notify the FTC, and they may use a standard form, which can be found along with additional information about the rule at www.ftc.gov/healthbreach.

You can find the full text of the rule here.

"FTC Issues Final Breach Notification Rule for Electronic Health Information," FTC Press Release (August 17, 2009).

Breaking News: FTC Delays Enforcement of the Red Flags Rule Again, Until November 1, 2009

From the FTC:

To assist small businesses and other entities, the Federal Trade Commission staff will redouble its efforts to educate them about compliance with the "Red Flags" Rule and ease compliance by providing additional resources and guidance to clarify whether businesses are covered by the Rule and what they must do to comply. To give creditors and financial institutions more time to review this guidance and develop and implement written Identity Theft Prevention Programs, the FTC will further delay enforcement of the Rule until November 1, 2009.

<...>

Although many covered entities have already developed and implemented appropriate, risk-based programs, some – particularly small businesses and entities with a low risk of identity theft – remain uncertain about their obligations. The additional compliance guidance that the Commission will make available shortly is designed to help them. Among other things, Commission staff will create a special link for small and low-risk entities on the Red Flags Rule Web site with materials that provide guidance and direction regarding the Rule. The Commission has already posted FAQs that address how the FTC intends to enforce the Rule and other topics – www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/redflagsrule/faqs.shtm. The enforcement FAQ states that Commission staff would be unlikely to recommend bringing a law enforcement action if entities know their customers or clients individually, or if they perform services in or around their customers’ homes, or if they operate in sectors where identity theft is rare and they have not themselves been the target of identity theft.

You can read the full press release here.

Sears settles FTC claims regarding its online tracking software

On June 4, 2009, Sears Holdings Corporation (Sears) settled its dispute with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding Sears's controversial online tracking software.  Sears paid its customers $10 to join "My SHC community" and download  software which would track participants' online behavior.  However, FTC alleged that Sears did not adequately disclose the enormous scope of information Sears collected on the participants:

<...> Sears represented to consumers that the software would track their “online browsing.” The FTC charges that the software would also monitor consumers’ online secure sessions – including sessions on third parties’ Web sites – and collect information transmitted in those sessions, such as the contents of shopping carts, online bank statements, drug prescription records, video rental records, library borrowing histories, and the sender, recipient, subject, and size for web-based e-mails. The software would also track some computer activities that were not related to the Internet.

Sears did disclose the full extent of what information it would monitor, but only "in a lengthy user license agreement, available to consumers at the end of a multi-step registration process", which the FTC deemed to be inadequate. 

Under the settlement, Sears is required to destroy the data collected under this program, and to "clearly and prominently disclose the types of data the software will monitor, record, or transmit" if Sears advertises or disseminates any tracking software in the future.  The FTC also required Sears to make such disclosure prior to installation of the software and separate from any user license agreement; and disclose whether any of the data will be used by a third party.

"Sears Settles FTC Charges Regarding Tracking Software", FTC press release (June 4, 2009).
"Sears settles with FTC in privacy flap", Reuters (June 4, 2009).

Breaking News: FTC Delays Enforcement of the Red Flags Rule Until August 1, 2009

From the FTC:

The Federal Trade Commission will delay enforcement of the new “Red Flags Rule” until August 1, 2009, to give creditors and financial institutions more time to develop and implement written identity theft prevention programs. For entities that have a low risk of identity theft, such as businesses that know their customers personally, the Commission will soon release a template to help them comply with the law. Today’s announcement does not affect other federal agencies’ enforcement of the original November 1, 2008 compliance deadline for institutions subject to their oversight.

“Given the ongoing debate about whether Congress wrote this provision too broadly, delaying enforcement of the Red Flags Rule will allow industries and associations to share guidance with their members, provide low-risk entities an opportunity to use the template in developing their programs, and give Congress time to consider the issue further,” FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said.

You can read the full press release here

 

Steve Fox on the new PHR privacy rules

Bob Brewin of NextGov interviewed Steve Fox regarding the new privacy rules for vendors of personal health records (PHRs), and the applicability of such rules not only to PHR vendors such as Google and Microsoft, but also to the less obvious "related entities", a group so broad it may include an iPhone app:

Steven Fox, a lawyer with Post & Schell in Washington who co-chairs the firm's data protection group, agreed that the rules cover Google and Microsoft but said he wished FTC had specifically identified the two companies in the proposed rules.

The rules cover about 200 vendors of personal health record systems and 500 "related entities, which include online medication or weight tracking programs, and 200 third-party providers that offer billing and data services.

The related entities category could include low-cost iPhone applications that would have to comply with the potentially costly breach notification process, Dixon said. An online guide lists "100 Fabulous iPhone Apps for Your Health and Fitness," and Fox said these applications would be covered by the breach notification rules if they exchange information with personal health records.

("Proposed breach notification rule would affect more health vendors", NextGov, April 16, 2009.)