FTC诉LabMD: FTC对信息隐私的管辖权是“合理的”,但它能走多远?

Peter S. Frechette
{"title":"FTC诉LabMD: FTC对信息隐私的管辖权是“合理的”,但它能走多远?","authors":"Peter S. Frechette","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2262801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) plays a large role in the cybersecurity world by enforcing specific statutes, such as HIPPA, COPPA, and FCRA, and, more generally, utilizing its authority under the Federal Trade Commission Act to penalize companies that allow data breaches. Recently, however, businesses have begun to push back, contesting the FTC’s authority to police information security. In FTC v. LabMD, Inc., a company under FTC investigation for an alleged data breach challenged the FTC’s ability to issue an administrative subpoena. LabMD indirectly disputed the FTC’s role in information security and its use of the unfairness category of the FTC Act as a basis of enforcement in data breach cases. The district court ultimately found that the FTC made a plausible case for its authority, but based its holding on the weight of precedent surrounding the FTC’s general use of the FTC Act in information security cases. Thus, the FTC’s reliance on the FTC Act is currently permitted, but could be challenged in the future. LabMD’s challenge of the FTC’s authority was significant however, because there is no legislative or executive action on privacy, so the FTC’s guidance, best practices, and enforcement set the de facto “privacy law.” As the FTC casts an increasingly wider net with or without congressional or executive action on data security, the future of the FTC Act’s scope in this area is uncertain.","PeriodicalId":80193,"journal":{"name":"The American University law review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"FTC v. LabMD: FTC Jurisdiction Over Information Privacy Is 'Plausible,' but How Far Can It Go?\",\"authors\":\"Peter S. Frechette\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2262801\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) plays a large role in the cybersecurity world by enforcing specific statutes, such as HIPPA, COPPA, and FCRA, and, more generally, utilizing its authority under the Federal Trade Commission Act to penalize companies that allow data breaches. Recently, however, businesses have begun to push back, contesting the FTC’s authority to police information security. In FTC v. LabMD, Inc., a company under FTC investigation for an alleged data breach challenged the FTC’s ability to issue an administrative subpoena. LabMD indirectly disputed the FTC’s role in information security and its use of the unfairness category of the FTC Act as a basis of enforcement in data breach cases. The district court ultimately found that the FTC made a plausible case for its authority, but based its holding on the weight of precedent surrounding the FTC’s general use of the FTC Act in information security cases. Thus, the FTC’s reliance on the FTC Act is currently permitted, but could be challenged in the future. LabMD’s challenge of the FTC’s authority was significant however, because there is no legislative or executive action on privacy, so the FTC’s guidance, best practices, and enforcement set the de facto “privacy law.” As the FTC casts an increasingly wider net with or without congressional or executive action on data security, the future of the FTC Act’s scope in this area is uncertain.\",\"PeriodicalId\":80193,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The American University law review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The American University law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2262801\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American University law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2262801","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

美国联邦贸易委员会(FTC)在网络安全领域发挥着重要作用,它执行具体的法规,如HIPPA、COPPA和FCRA,更广泛地说,它利用《联邦贸易委员会法案》(Federal Trade Commission Act)赋予的权力,惩罚允许数据泄露的公司。然而,最近企业开始反击,对联邦贸易委员会监管信息安全的权力提出质疑。在FTC诉LabMD公司案中,一家因涉嫌数据泄露而受到FTC调查的公司对FTC发出行政传票的能力提出了质疑。LabMD间接地对联邦贸易委员会在信息安全方面的作用及其使用联邦贸易委员会法案的不公平类别作为数据泄露案件执行的基础提出异议。地区法院最终发现,联邦贸易委员会为其权力提出了一个合理的理由,但其依据是围绕联邦贸易委员会在信息安全案件中普遍使用《联邦贸易委员会法》的先例的重要性。因此,联邦贸易委员会对《联邦贸易委员会法》的依赖目前是允许的,但将来可能会受到挑战。然而,LabMD对联邦贸易委员会权威的挑战意义重大,因为没有关于隐私的立法或行政行动,所以联邦贸易委员会的指导、最佳实践和执行设定了事实上的“隐私法”。无论是否有国会或行政部门对数据安全采取行动,随着联邦贸易委员会的网络越来越广,《联邦贸易委员会法案》在这一领域的范围的未来是不确定的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
FTC v. LabMD: FTC Jurisdiction Over Information Privacy Is 'Plausible,' but How Far Can It Go?
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) plays a large role in the cybersecurity world by enforcing specific statutes, such as HIPPA, COPPA, and FCRA, and, more generally, utilizing its authority under the Federal Trade Commission Act to penalize companies that allow data breaches. Recently, however, businesses have begun to push back, contesting the FTC’s authority to police information security. In FTC v. LabMD, Inc., a company under FTC investigation for an alleged data breach challenged the FTC’s ability to issue an administrative subpoena. LabMD indirectly disputed the FTC’s role in information security and its use of the unfairness category of the FTC Act as a basis of enforcement in data breach cases. The district court ultimately found that the FTC made a plausible case for its authority, but based its holding on the weight of precedent surrounding the FTC’s general use of the FTC Act in information security cases. Thus, the FTC’s reliance on the FTC Act is currently permitted, but could be challenged in the future. LabMD’s challenge of the FTC’s authority was significant however, because there is no legislative or executive action on privacy, so the FTC’s guidance, best practices, and enforcement set the de facto “privacy law.” As the FTC casts an increasingly wider net with or without congressional or executive action on data security, the future of the FTC Act’s scope in this area is uncertain.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信