CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Archive for the ‘Coronavirus – Cyber, Privacy & Security’ Category

Statute of Limitations Tolled in California Amid Pandemic

Posted on: August 3rd, 2020

By: Matthew Jones

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, California’s Governor Gavin Newsom issued a “state of emergency” for the entire State. In response, the California Judicial Council adopted several Emergency Rules to implement during the pandemic. In particular, Rule 9 states that all statute of limitations for civil causes of action are tolled from April 6, 2020 until 90 days after the state of emergency related to COVID-19 is lifted by the Governor. Therefore, if a party’s claim would have expired pursuant to the applicable statute of limitations during this timeframe, such claims are still very much alive. In regard to those claims, there is currently no deadline to file them since the “state of emergency” has yet to be lifted by the Governor. Once lifted, claimants will have six months to file their respective claims.

Additional Information:

FMG has formed a Coronavirus Task Force to provide up-to-the-minute information, strategic advice, and practical solutions for our clients.  Our group is an interdisciplinary team of attorneys who can address the multitude of legal issues arising out of the coronavirus pandemic, including issues related to Healthcare, Product Liability, Tort Liability, Data Privacy, and Cyber and Local Governments.  For more information about the Task Force, click here.

You can also contact your FMG relationship partner or email the team with any questions at [email protected].

**DISCLAIMER:  The attorneys at Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP (“FMG”) have been working hard to produce educational content to address issues arising from the concern over COVID-19.  The webinars and our written material have produced many questions. Some we have been able to answer, but many we cannot without a specific legal engagement.  We can only give legal advice to clients.  Please be aware that your attendance at one of our webinars or receipt of our written material does not establish an attorney-client relationship between you and FMG.  An attorney-client relationship will not exist unless and until an FMG partner expressly and explicitly states IN WRITING that FMG will undertake an attorney-client relationship with you, after ascertaining that the firm does not have any legal conflicts of interest.  As a result, you should not transmit any personal or confidential information to FMG unless we have entered into a formal written agreement with you.  We will continue to produce education content for the public, but we must point out that none of our webinars, articles, blog posts, or other similar material constitutes legal advice, does not create an attorney client relationship and you cannot rely on it as such.  We hope you will continue to take advantage of the conferences and materials that may pertain to your work or interests.**

Microsoft Takes Control of Domains Exploiting COVID-19 Crisis in Phishing Attacks

Posted on: July 17th, 2020

By: Barry Miller

Microsoft now controls several domain names that, according to the company, were used in attempts to get personal information from Microsoft account holders during the COVID-19 crisis.

A Virginia federal court issued a temporary restraining order July 7, finding good cause to believe that two John Doe defendants would likely violate federal law by using the domain names in phishing attacks. That order directed the registries to give Microsoft control over the hosting and administration of the offending internet domains.

The Court also unsealed Microsoft’s complaint. It alleges that the John Doe Defendants registered the domains such as “OfficeInventorys.com,” and “OfficeSuiteSoft.com,” using them to send emails “designed to look like they come from an employer or other trusted source.”

Links in those emails, if clicked, would lead the victim to servers hosting malicious web applications that interacted with Office 365 services. Those applications granted the criminals access to Office 365 accounts holding “email, contacts, notes and material stored in the victims’ One Drive for Business” or SharePoint, according to the complaint.

Microsoft’s Digital Crimes Unit began investigating these criminals in December 2019, according to a blog post from Tom Burt, Corporate Vice President, Customer Security and Trust. It blocked their activity but continued to monitor them. “Recently, Microsoft observed renewed attempts by the same criminals, this time using COVID-19 related lures in the phishing emails to target victims,” Mr. Burt’s post stated.

His post cited the FBI’s 2019 Internet Crime Report stating business email compromise attacks (BECs) are the most expensive complaints the Internet Crime Complaint Center receives. The FBI attributed losses exceeding $1.7 billion to BECs.

Mr. Burt pledged that Microsoft would continue to investigate and disrupt cybercriminals, but reminded users that cyber threats continue to evolve, making it “more important than ever to remain vigilant against cyber attacks.”

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Barry Miller at [email protected].

Additional Information:

FMG has formed a Coronavirus Task Force to provide up-to-the-minute information, strategic advice, and practical solutions for our clients. Our group is an interdisciplinary team of attorneys who can address the multitude of legal issues arising out of the coronavirus pandemic, including issues related to Healthcare, Product Liability, Tort Liability, Data Privacy, and Cyber and Local Governments. For more information about the Task Force, click here.

You can also contact your FMG relationship partner or email the team with any questions at [email protected].

**DISCLAIMER: The attorneys at Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP (“FMG”) have been working hard to produce educational content to address issues arising from the concern over COVID-19. The webinars and our written material have produced many questions. Some we have been able to answer, but many we cannot without a specific legal engagement. We can only give legal advice to clients.  Please be aware that your attendance at one of our webinars or receipt of our written material does not establish an attorney-client relationship between you and FMG. An attorney-client relationship will not exist unless and until an FMG partner expressly and explicitly states IN WRITING that FMG will undertake an attorney-client relationship with you, after ascertaining that the firm does not have any legal conflicts of interest.  As a result, you should not transmit any personal or confidential information to FMG unless we have entered into a formal written agreement with you. We will continue to produce education content for the public, but we must point out that none of our webinars, articles, blog posts, or other similar material constitutes legal advice, does not create an attorney client relationship and you cannot rely on it as such. We hope you will continue to take advantage of the conferences and materials that may pertain to your work or interests.**

FINRA Issues Guidance on Remote Work Including Continued Warning for Cyber Threats

Posted on: June 15th, 2020

By: Kathleen Cusack and Kirsten Patzer

Although all 50 states have begun the process of reopening, business spaces have not yet returned to full capacity and many people continue to work remotely.  On May 28, 2020, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) issued new guidance for working from home based on surveys of financial firms. 

One such piece of guidance is a continued reminder to be vigilant with confidentiality requirements and cybersecurity concerns.  FINRA suggests reminding associated persons of confidentiality requirements, including maintaining a private workspace while working from home and taking extra precautions when working near family or friends.  FINRA also recommends that financial businesses remind and train staff about cybersecurity vulnerabilities and potential fraud risks. 

Since 2015, FINRA has released multiple reports and notices aimed at informing financial professionals about cyber risks and best practices.  The mass shift to remote work has not only resulted in a dramatic increase in the use of personal devices for the completion of work, but has also prompted a sizable increase in cyber threats to individuals and businesses.  According to a study discussed in Forbes, cyber threats increased by about a third between January and March of this year. 

One of the most common types of cyber scams is phishing.  Phishing schemes attempt to entice users to provide sensitive information to people pretending to be a trustworthy person.  To protect against phishing scams, FINRA recommends that businesses employ a combination of technological tools and regular training for employees to identify scams. Financial advisors and other associated persons are reminded to not accept trade instructions, withdrawal requests, or third-party transfers via electronic mail. If such a request is received, the advisor should contact their client via telephone to verify and confirm the instruction.   

FINRA has also cautioned against increased cybersecurity risks with the use of mobile devices.  FINRA warns that compared to in-office devices, mobile devices face a higher risk of theft or exposure to the installation of malicious applications.  

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Kirsten Patzer at [email protected] or Kathleen Cusack at [email protected]

Additional Information:

FMG has formed a Coronavirus Task Force to provide up-to-the-minute information, strategic advice, and practical solutions for our clients. Our group is an interdisciplinary team of attorneys who can address the multitude of legal issues arising out of the coronavirus pandemic, including issues related to Healthcare, Product Liability, Tort Liability, Data Privacy, and Cyber and Local Governments. For more information about the Task Force, click here.

You can also contact your FMG relationship partner or email the team with any questions at [email protected].

**DISCLAIMER: The attorneys at Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP (“FMG”) have been working hard to produce educational content to address issues arising from the concern over COVID-19. The webinars and our written material have produced many questions. Some we have been able to answer, but many we cannot without a specific legal engagement. We can only give legal advice to clients.  Please be aware that your attendance at one of our webinars or receipt of our written material does not establish an attorney-client relationship between you and FMG. An attorney-client relationship will not exist unless and until an FMG partner expressly and explicitly states IN WRITING that FMG will undertake an attorney-client relationship with you, after ascertaining that the firm does not have any legal conflicts of interest.  As a result, you should not transmit any personal or confidential information to FMG unless we have entered into a formal written agreement with you. We will continue to produce education content for the public, but we must point out that none of our webinars, articles, blog posts, or other similar material constitutes legal advice, does not create an attorney client relationship and you cannot rely on it as such. We hope you will continue to take advantage of the conferences and materials that may pertain to your work or interests.**

Supreme Court to Hear Arguments Remotely, Including TCPA Constitutional Challenge

Posted on: April 16th, 2020

By: Matthew Foree

This week, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would hear oral arguments remotely for the first time in its history.  The Court will hear oral arguments by telephone conference on certain dates in May in a limited number of cases that had previously been postponed.  The cases are to be assigned dates for argument after confirming counsel’s availability.

The Court’s press release provides that “[i]n keeping with public health guidance in response to COVID-19, the Justices and counsel will all participate remotely.”  Interestingly, the Court stated that it “anticipates providing a live audio feed of these arguments to news media” and that “[d]etails will be shared as they become available.”

Among the cases the Court is set to hear in May is Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., which concerns a constitutional challenge to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”).  The Court has just scheduled argument in the Barr case for Wednesday, May 6, 2020.The TCPA generally prohibits calls to a cellular telephone using either an “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS) or an “artificial or prerecorded voice,” unless the call is made with the prior express consent of the recipient.  In a 2015 amendment to the TCPA, Congress exempted from this prohibition calls “made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States.” 

In 2016, the Respondents in Barr initiated a declaratory judgment action against the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and the Attorney General, arguing that the TCPA’s content-based ban on protected speech violated the First Amendment.  They sought declaratory relief and an injunction restraining the Government from enforcing the ban against them.  The case made its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which found a First Amendment violation and determined that the government-debt exception was severable from the rest of the TCPA.    

As we have discussed previously, TCPA litigation often centers around whether calls were made using an ATDS.  The current litigation landscape concerning the interpretation of the definition of ATDS has caused a split in the Circuit Courts and generated significant confusion that continues to this day.  In Barr, Respondents argue that the TCPA’s automated call restriction, not just the government-debt exception, violates the First Amendment.  Accordingly, practitioners in this area are anxious for the ruling on this matter, particularly as it relates to how far the Supreme Court will go to resolve the constitutional issue, which can have a major impact on the statute and TCPA litigation moving forward.  

Additional Information:

The FMG Coronavirus Task Team will be conducting a series of webinars on Coronavirus issues on a regular basis. Topics include COVID-19’s impact on finances and loans, the FFCRA, the CARES Act and more. Click here to view upcoming webinars.

FMG has formed a Coronavirus Task Force to provide up-to-the-minute information, strategic advice, and practical solutions for our clients.  Our group is an interdisciplinary team of attorneys who can address the multitude of legal issues arising out of the coronavirus pandemic, including issues related to Healthcare, Product Liability, Tort Liability, Data Privacy, and Cyber and Local Governments.  For more information about the Task Force, click here.

You can also contact your FMG relationship partner or email the team with any questions at [email protected].

**DISCLAIMER:  The attorneys at Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP (“FMG”) have been working hard to produce educational content to address issues arising from the concern over COVID-19.  The webinars and our written material have produced many questions. Some we have been able to answer, but many we cannot without a specific legal engagement.  We can only give legal advice to clients.  Please be aware that your attendance at one of our webinars or receipt of our written material does not establish an attorney-client relationship between you and FMG.  An attorney-client relationship will not exist unless and until an FMG partner expressly and explicitly states IN WRITING that FMG will undertake an attorney-client relationship with you, after ascertaining that the firm does not have any legal conflicts of interest.  As a result, you should not transmit any personal or confidential information to FMG unless we have entered into a formal written agreement with you.  We will continue to produce education content for the public, but we must point out that none of our webinars, articles, blog posts, or other similar material constitutes legal advice, does not create an attorney client relationship and you cannot rely on it as such.  We hope you will continue to take advantage of the conferences and materials that may pertain to your work or interests.**

Zoom Class Action Raises Privacy Concern with Favored Online Meeting Platform

Posted on: April 2nd, 2020

By: Barry Miller

A class action filed March 30 alleges that the popular Zoom Video Communications platform is rife with privacy concerns.

That story has piqued the interest of the legal community, as Zoom has become the platform of choice among mediators working to resolve disputes during a time when in-person meetings are prohibited or discouraged.

The class action, Cullen v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., 5:20-cv-02155 (N.D. Cal.), alleges that Zoom “has failed to properly safeguard the personal information of the increasing millions of users of its software application….” It states that “[u]pon installing or upon each opening of the Zoom App, Zoom collects the personal information of its users and discloses, without adequate notice or authorization, this personal information of its users….”

The lawsuit states claims under the California Consumer Privacy Act, as well as the state’s Unlawful and Unfair Business Practices and Consumers Legal Remedies laws. It also makes common-law claims for negligence, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment.

Forbes magazine reported yesterday that some users are complaining that the recording of private chats in Zoom results in disclosing chats thought to be private. Messages to other chat users are visible when the chat is downloaded, according to a Twitter user Forbes quoted. Zoom this in its story, although it did say that if a host records a Zoom meeting locally, private chats become part of that recording. Another outlet is reporting that Zoom meetings do not support encryption end-to-end.

Both the U.S. Attorney General and the N.Y. Attorney General are investigating Zoom privacy concerns. As a result of such investigations and complaints, Zoom has reportedly removed code that sent user data to Facebook without clearly disclosing that to the user.

Zoom has said that its app did not share sensitive data, such as user names, emails, or phone numbers, but did provide information about user devices (including specifications), operating systems, and time zones.

The federal and New York investigations bear watching by attorneys. Since mid-March, when COVID-19 caused many state and federal courts to close or restrict access to courthouses and ban in-person proceedings, mediators have (commendably) continued to work at getting cases settled without in-person meetings. Most court orders encourage the use of technology to continue the progress of cases. Mediators were among the first to heed that encouragement, and the Zoom platform emerged as their consensus choice.

California mediator Jean Lawler does not believe mediators will stop using Zoom, but she does believe both mediators and the attorneys they work with must have a good understanding of the technology before using it. She notes that Zoom gives users the ability to control settings, and users must be aware of how they are set. “[A]nyone who hosts an online meeting, on any platform, would be well advised to very judiciously take a look at their settings and options to ensure settings that can protect the privacy of the participants,” said Lawler in an email.

Among the most important things, she said, is not to allow recordings of mediation sessions, not allowing chat, requiring unique identifiers and passwords from attendees, and having attendees go to a virtual waiting room so the mediator can allow them into mediation after confirming their identity.

Zoom makes similar security recommendations in a whitepaper available on its site.

Attorneys may also wish to review Zoom’s Compliance Statement with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, and inquire whether the same protective steps have been taken to protect data in the United States. This is particularly true if the mediation may involve the data of EU residents, or data collected from someone while they were visiting the EU.

Another mediator told FMG that confidential information in his mediations continues to be exchanged by mail and email. None of that information is exchanged via Zoom.

As government leaders talk about flattening the contagion curve, Zoom is a reminder that attorneys, mediators, and judges are finding they must accelerate their technology learning curve.  

Additional Information:

The FMG Coronavirus Task Team will be conducting a series of webinars on Coronavirus issues on a regular basis. Topics include COVID-19’s impact on the construction industry, employment issues arising from the virus, the real-world impact of business restrictions, and education claims. Click here to register.

FMG has formed a Coronavirus Task Force to provide up-to-the-minute information, strategic advice, and practical solutions for our clients.  Our group is an interdisciplinary team of attorneys who can address the multitude of legal issues arising out of the coronavirus pandemic, including issues related to Healthcare, Product Liability, Tort Liability, Data Privacy, and Cyber and Local Governments.  For more information about the Task Force, click here.

You can also contact your FMG relationship partner or email the team with any questions at [email protected].

**DISCLAIMER:  The attorneys at Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP (“FMG”) have been working hard to produce educational content to address issues arising from the concern over COVID-19.  The webinars and our written material have produced many questions. Some we have been able to answer, but many we cannot without a specific legal engagement.  We can only give legal advice to clients.  Please be aware that your attendance at one of our webinars or receipt of our written material does not establish an attorney-client relationship between you and FMG.  An attorney-client relationship will not exist unless and until an FMG partner expressly and explicitly states IN WRITING that FMG will undertake an attorney-client relationship with you, after ascertaining that the firm does not have any legal conflicts of interest.  As a result, you should not transmit any personal or confidential information to FMG unless we have entered into a formal written agreement with you.  We will continue to produce education content for the public, but we must point out that none of our webinars, articles, blog posts, or other similar material constitutes legal advice, does not create an attorney client relationship and you cannot rely on it as such.  We hope you will continue to take advantage of the conferences and materials that may pertain to your work or interests.**