Our Team

Company's employees are highly-trained, experienced and dedicated to the success of our business.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact LegalShield Member Services:



MemberServices@legalshield.com

1-800-654-7757

Monday-Friday 7am-7pm, CT


 

Thank You,



Linda Brown

VP, LegalShield Member Service

Serves at Community Supper

Attorney Charles J. Willinger,Jr.

Specialties

Land Use And Zoning Law

Professional Development

Year 203-366-3939

Event1

Year to Year

Event

Attorney Toni  Marie Gelineau

Specialties

Real Estate Tranasactions

Professional Development

Year to Year 203-366-3939

Event

Attorney James A. Lenes

Specialties

Personal Injury Law

Bankruptcy Law

Commercial Litigation Law

Professional Development

Year to Year 203-366-3939

Event

Attorney Diane M. Lord

Specialties

Land Use Zoning Law

Professional Development

Year to Year 203-366-3939

Evemt

Attorney Mark H. Middlen

Specialties

Personal Injury Law

Divorce and Family Law

Professional Development

Year to Year 203-366-3939

Event

Attorney Athan S. Mihalakos

Specialties

Specialed Education/Shool Law

Transportation Law

Professional Development

Year to Year 203-366-3939

Event

Attorney Matthew D. Newman

Specialties

Personal Injury Law

Divorce and Family Law

Commercial Litigation Law

Professional Development

Year to Year 203-366-3939

Event

Attorney Tracy L. Norris

Specialties

Employment Criminal and Civil Litigation

Professional Development

Year to Year 203-366-3939

Event

Attorney Bradd S. Robbins

Specialties

Real Estate Transactions

Professional Development

Year to Year 203-366-3939

Event

Associate Director Delano Paul

Specialties

Independent Assocate Directors

Legal Plans

Professional Development

Year to Year 516-967-9814

Event

Consultant/Web Developer William Johnson

Specialties

Consultant/Web Developer

Lucky Legal Service

Year to Year 860-560-2704

Professional Development

Event

California data breach law AB1710 stirs up debate on notification requirements

FacebookTweetGoogle PlusLinkedInE-mail
December 10, 2014December 11, 2014 | Kroll Editorial Team

California Assembly Bill No.1710 (AB 1710) was signed into law on September 30, 2014, and amends California’s existing data protection laws, in part by setting forth requirements on what to do if protected data is exposed.

AB1710 takes effect this  January 1st, 2015, and there has already been much speculation and debate regarding several key pieces of the legislation. One such point of debate is the wording that amends what must be done if data is breached, which now states that a breached entity must “offer to provide appropriate identity theft prevention and mitigation services, if any, to the affected person at no cost for not less than 12 months if the breach exposed or may have exposed specified personal information.”

It is the use of “if any” as a modifier that is causing contention; i.e., does this phrasing mandate services, or simply that entities choosing to offer services must do so for 12 months? It’s likely this will be answered through guidance issued by the California attorney general’s office; however, the question remains as to what constitutes “appropriate” identity theft prevention and mitigation services?

[California Data BReach Law AB1710] The de facto offering is, of course, credit monitoring. Yet, there are many types of identity theft that cannot be detected by simply viewing the information reported to the credit bureaus. Kroll advocates a risk-based approach, one that relies upon a careful analysis of the facts and circumstances of the event, the types of sensitive information that were breached, the size of the event, and the sensitivity of the impacted population. This type of analysis helps clarify the type of mitigation services that would be appropriate and useful to breach constituents, and also sheds light on the impact of the breach to the organization itself.

Such a measured approach offers an advantage to organizations that have been breached, especially in light of these new requirements in California. There are even indicators that, as in the past, California may be leading the way: Rhode Island and Minnesota for example, have already considered their own bills requiring credit monitoring or other services. It behooves all entities that do business in California to consider the implications of the law, and to begin considering the types of meaningful mitigation services they can offer consumers.

Tags: Cyber Security Identity Theft Law/Legal Other Technology, Media & Telecoms United States

About the Author

Kroll Editorial Team

About the Author

Kroll Editorial Team

Cyber Security
Resources

Find out more about Kroll's cyber security capabilities
Read about Kroll's data breach and incident response capabilities
Learn about Kroll's computer forensics capabilities
Subscribe to the Kroll Cyber Security Newsletter

Stay Connected

- Subscribe to receive updates now

Thank you for your interest in the latest updates on trends and developments in risk prevention, response and remediation. If you are not currently subscribed, you can use the form below to register for Kroll's Perspectives Newsletter. If you do not see a form, you are already successfully registered.

Trending Topics

Ghosts of retail data breaches: Past, present and future

by Jennifer Rothstein | December 11, 2014
Breach Prevention Cyber Security Identity Theft Response Notification Insurance Retail, Wholesale & Distribution EMEA United States

California data breach law AB1710 stirs up debate on notification requirements

by Kroll Editorial Team | December 10, 2014
Cyber Security Identity Theft Law/Legal Other Technology, Media & Telecoms United States

Anyone want to buy a data breach?

by Alex Gross | November 4, 2014
Breach Prevention Cyber Investigations Cyber Security Data Breach Response and Remediation Data Security Business Services Insurance Law/Legal Retail, Wholesale & Distribution EMEA United States

Ghosts of retail data breaches: Past, present and future

by Jennifer Rothstein | December 11, 2014
Breach Prevention Cyber Security Identity Theft Response Notification Insurance Retail, Wholesale & Distribution EMEA United States

California data breach law AB1710 stirs up debate on notification requirements

by Kroll Editorial Team | December 10, 2014
Cyber Security Identity Theft Law/Legal Other Technology, Media & Telecoms United States

Anyone want to buy a data breach?

by Alex Gross | November 4, 2014
Breach Prevention Cyber Investigations Cyber Security Data Breach Response and Remediation Data Security Business Services Insurance Law/Legal Retail, Wholesale & Distribution EMEA United States

Topics

Compliance
Cyber Security
Due Diligence
Investigations

Industries

Consumer Goods
Financial Services
Healthcare, Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology
Law/Legal
Natural Resources
Retail

Regions

Americas
Africa
Asia Pacific
Europe
The Gulf States

About

About the Blog
Authors
Resources

Contact Us
Subscribe

[Kroll's Official Blog]
[Kroll's Official Blog]

Contact
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Kroll.com

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Cookies Policy

Copyright © 2015 Kroll. All rights reserved.