TECHNOLOGY, OUTSOURCING, AND COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS
NEWS FOR LAWYERS AND SOURCING PROFESSIONALS

For years, there has been a persistent trend toward outsourcing retirement plan recordkeeping and other administrative responsibilities. Although historically more prevalent for defined contribution plans, this outsourcing trend has been accelerating for defined benefit plans thanks, in part, to the prevalence of frozen plans (i.e., no more benefit accruals) and the potential for administrative cost savings. But service providers will be quick to remind plan fiduciaries that lightening the administrative load does not include transferring fiduciary duties. When selecting and monitoring a service provider, one key issue facing retirement plan fiduciaries is their duty with respect to the privacy and security of plan participant data.

As we previously discussed, managing and administering retirement plans also mean managing and protecting an extensive trove of personal data. Although there is no overarching privacy law governing retirement plans, fiduciaries must adhere to the “prudent expert” standard of care in fulfilling their duties, and, in the current environment, it can be expected that courts will be sympathetic to assertions that privacy and security of plan participant data are within the scope of those duties. Given that fiduciaries are personally liable for their fiduciary breaches and considering the cost of a data breach can be in the millions of dollars, the sensible course of action for retirement plan fiduciaries is to be continuously diligent and attentive regarding data privacy and security. This extends to diligence and care in the structuring of the outsourcing agreement.

The Clearing House (the oldest banking association and payments company in the United States) recently released a model agreement as a voluntary starting point to facilitate data sharing between financial institutions and fintech companies.

The model agreement is intended to provide a standardized foundation that speeds up data access agreement negotiations; as the Clearing House notes, “[L]egal agreements between banks and fintechs have sometimes taken 12 months or more to be developed and finalized and have become a significant bottleneck to API adoption.” Additionally, the model agreement is designed to reflect the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s consumer protection principles on data sharing and aggregation, providing confidence to the contracting parties that the terms address key regulatory issues.

The German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) has determined the suitability of an industry-specific security standard (B3S) with which hospitals can align their IT security measures. The B3S standard was developed by the German Hospital Association (DKG).

Morgan Lewis partners Ksenia Andreeva, Anastasia Dergacheva, Vasilisa Strizh, and Brian Zimbler and associate Anastasia Kiseleva contributed the chapter on Russia for the recently released Data Protection & Privacy 2020, the eighth edition of the Lexology Getting the Deal Through publication.

Lexology Getting The Deal Through provides international expert analysis in key areas of law, practice, and regulation for corporate counsel, cross-border legal practitioners, and company directors and officers. The publication addresses many of the most important data protection and data privacy laws in force or in preparation throughout the globe, with a discussion of the same key data protection and privacy questions with analysis from leading practitioners in each of the featured jurisdictions.

As our loyal Tech & Sourcing readers know, we have been doing our best to keep you informed about the requirements of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and what you can do to prepare as its January 1, 2020, effective date draws near. Continuing that vein, we invite you to an upcoming webinar wherein Morgan Lewis partners Reese Hirsch, Mark Krotoski, and Carla Oakley and associate Kristin Hadgis will provide an overview of the latest amendments to the CCPA, the state of the law and related regulations, and practical perspectives on CCPA compliance.

The Morgan Lewis team will discuss the following topics:

  • The new one-year exemption for employee data*
  • The new one-year exemption for B2B communications*
  • Other new amendments, including those related to the use of toll-free numbers and verifiable consumer requests*
  • Failed amendments and other issues to watch
  • Status of California attorney general regulations and a possible new ballot initiative
  • Other state laws influenced by the CCPA
  • Preparing for the January 1 effective date and 2020 enforcement date

We hope you will join us for the one-hour webinar on Tuesday, October 22 at 1:00 pm ET.

Register for the webinar now >

For a primer in advance of the webinar, catch up on our previous posts on the CCPA and recently proposed amendments, and check out the Morgan Lewis CCPA Resource Center for more.

*Indicates an amendment to the CCPA that has passed the California Legislature but, as of this writing, has not yet been signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom.

The California legislature passed five bills on September 13 to amend and clarify the scope of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). If the amendments are signed by the California governor by the October 13 deadline, they will become part of the CCPA, set to take effect on January 1, 2020. A LawFlash by Morgan Lewis partner Reese Hirsch and associates Kristin Hadgis, Lauren Groebe, and Terese Schireson discusses the key proposals in each amendment, such as:

Cybersecurity continues to be an issue at the forefront of many of our contract negotiations. Though not typically included in the “data security” section of an agreement, the level and scope of cyberinsurance coverage often plays an important factor in the discussions between customer and vendor.

On this topic, Morgan Lewis partners Mark Krotoski and Jeffrey Raskin will present an upcoming webinar as part of our firm’s Cyber Insurance Webinar Series to discuss ongoing developments in the cyberinsurance space, with a focus on the critical factors your company can consider as part of its overall cybersecurity protection strategy. The one-hour webinar, Cyber Insurance: Is Your Company Covered?, will take place on Tuesday, September 17, at 2:00 pm ET.

The January 1, 2020, deadline to comply with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is fast approaching. Signed into law in the summer of 2018, the CCPA creates a variety of new consumer privacy rights and will require many companies to implement policies and procedures to manage and comply with new consumer-facing responsibilities. Catch up on the details of the CCPA in our previous post, this LawFlash, and the Morgan Lewis CCPA resource center.

An IAPP article by Annie Bai and Peter McLaughlin recently caught our attention, as it discusses the business risks of complying with the “verifiable consumer request” requirement under the CCPA. Under the CCPA, a California consumer may (1) request that a covered business provide access to the consumer’s personal information or (2) request that his or her personal information be deleted. Upon receiving such a request, the covered business must verify the identity of the requesting individual and respond. However, there is not much clarity in the CCPA regarding how a covered business must verify an individual’s identity.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) recently circulated a draft white paper discussing recommended security practices to be adopted throughout the various phases of software development. The white paper provides three overarching reasons for integrating secure development practices throughout the software development lifecycle (SDLC) regardless of the development model (e.g., waterfall, agile), namely, “to reduce the number of vulnerabilities in released software, to mitigate the potential impact of the exploitation of undetected or unaddressed vulnerabilities, and to address the root causes of vulnerabilities to prevent future recurrences.”

The white paper discusses the following four secure software development practices, and breaks down each topic by (1) practices, (2) tasks, (3) implementation examples, and (4) references.

The Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security (SHIELD) Act was signed into New York law by Governor Andrew Cuomo on July 25, after passing the New York State Assembly on June 17. The SHIELD Act takes effect on March 21, 2020, and will modernize New York’s current laws governing data breach notification and data security requirements with the intention of providing greater protection for consumer's private information, while holding companies accountable for providing such protections.

Read our previous post on the SHIELD Act for more information.