Ending its epic battle with the FTC, Wyndham entered into a settlement agreement with the FTC.  Under the terms of the Stipulated Order that was filed on December 9, 2015 with Judge Salas, Wyndham will establish a “comprehensive information security program designed to protect cardholder data – including payment card numbers, names and expiration dates.”  In addition, the company is required to “conduct annual information security audits and maintain safeguards in connections to its franchisees’ servers.”

These safeguards have a shelf-life of 20 years — common for FTC stipulated agreements involving data breaches.  What is noteworthy and distinct from other settlements, however, is that there is no money changing hands — Wyndham pays no fines, investigative costs or any amount for that matter.   This overall result — especially in light of the Third Circuit ruling, can only be considered a solid victory for Wyndham.

Franchise operators also scored somewhat of a victory given the FTC finally gives some guidance as to what it considers to be a reasonable security program for franchise operators.  First, the FTC alerts future companies that if they conform to the most current Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) for certification of a company’s security program, they are in the right direction towards implementing a satisfactory program.  Indeed, the settlement specifically defines its terms as per PCI DSS Version 3.1.  Not surprisingly, the second aspect of a suitable program requires the implementation of a risk-based approach to threat assessment.  As set forth in I.C of the Stipulated Order, Wyndham’s program must include “the design and implementation of reasonable safeguards to control the risks identified through risk assessment (including any risks emanating from the Wyndham-branded Hotels), and regular testing or monitoring of the effectiveness of the safeguards’ key controls, systems, and procedure.”

The agreed-upon requirements also apply to any “entity that that Defendant has any ownership interest in or controls directly or indirectly that may affect compliance obligations arising under this Order.”  And overall compliance features of the Stipulated Order mimic discovery process available under the Federal Rules of Evidence and will certainly be tested over the twenty-year term.  Such future testing — coupled with potential new breaches, may lead to future stipulated Orders.  For the moment, however, Wyndham should be relieved with the results of its FTC skirmish — as well as happy with the work done by its counsel.

On September 17, 2015, a California Judge approved a final stipulated judgment between media giant Comcast and the California Public Utilities Commission.  In Paragraph 17 of the Complaint filed the same day, Comcast was not exactly accused of heinous conduct:  “for varying periods of time between July 2010 to December 2012, and for many customers the entire period, approximately 75,000 Comcast residential subscribers in California who had paid Comcast the monthly fee for a non-published or non-listed phone number nevertheless had their subscriber listing information published on Ecolisting, and (in some cases) in phone books, and/or made available by a directory assistance provider.”

In other words, Comcast customers who paid to avoid potentially being listed on sites such a whitepages.com were inadvertently deprived of that purchased service.  Specifically, because “the ‘privacy flag’ was not attached to the listings of approximately 75 ,000 non-published/non-listed subscribers, Neustar provided those listings to Comcast’s vendor, Microsoft FAST, who then published them for Comcast on the Ecolisting website.”  Complaint at ¶ 15.

No financial data was exposed.  No transaction or business data was exposed.  No medical data was exposed.  No emails or passwords were compromised.  Indeed, the only information exposed was the very same information that could be obtained by anyone doing a few sophisticated Google searches – names, addresses, and phone numbers.   For most people, such information exists online independently of any Comcast action or inaction.   In other words, whether or not Comcast properly withheld such information would not likely prevent someone from finding it online.

As part of the settlement, Comcast must pay $25 million in penalties and investigative costs to the California Department of Justice and the California Public Utilities Commission.   The 75,000 customers who were “compromised” ended up with refunds and $100 more in restitution added to their Comcast bills.

And, as part of the stipulated judgment, Comcast also agreed to a permanent injunction that requires the company to strengthen the restrictions it places on its vendors’ use of personal information about customers.  The injunction also requires Comcast to provide a new disclosure form to all customers that explains the ways in which it uses unlisted phone numbers and other personal information.  Such restrictions and added duties have little to do with the actual transgression in question — they represent added gimmes obtained by the California AG’s office given the leverage it had over Comcast.

This case is yet another wake-up call to companies maintaining or processing large amounts of customer data.  Even though the Comcast settlement is somewhat unique given the nature of the information as well as the “unlisting service” provided, other companies also safeguard what may otherwise be publicly available information.  When there are assurances made that such information will be safeguarded, does that automatically elevate the value of the information?

The larger question is how can a transgression with no ostensible harm mushroom into a $25 million payment to a governmental agency?  Until a General Counsel can answer that question with definite certainty, the only course of action is to treat all customer data equally and ensure the requisite reasonable precautions undertaken to safeguard such information matches or exceeds what is considered state-of-the-art for that company’s industry sector.

In a 47-page ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed today an April 7, 2014 ruling of Judge Esther Salas against Wyndham Worldwide.  In affirming the district court ruling, the Third Circuit left intact Judge Salas’s decision that the FTC has power to regulate “unfair trade practices” based on the alleged failed data security of Wyndham.

The Third Circuit recast Wyndham’s argument and ultimately rejected what was potentially viable on appeal as “[t]oo little and too late.”  As recognized by the Court:

Wyndham repeatedly argued there is no FTC interpretation of § 45(a) or (n) to which the federal courts must defer in this case, and, as a result, the courts must interpret the meaning of the statute as it applies to Wyndham’s conduct in the first instance. Thus, Wyndham cannot argue it was entitled to know with ascertainable certainty the cybersecurity standards by which the FTC expected it to conform. Instead, the company can only claim that it lacked fair notice of the meaning of the statute itself – a theory it did not meaningfully raise and that we strongly suspect would be unpersuasive under the facts of this case..

In what was a sua sponte rejection of Wyndham’s “implied” argument that it was not provided with sufficient statutory notice of the century-old Federal Trade Commission Act, the Court of Appeals recognized:

Moreover, Wyndham is entitled to a relatively low level of statutory notice for several reasons. Subsection 45(a) does not implicate any constitutional rights here. [citation omitted] It is a civil rather than criminal statute. [citation omitted] And statutes regulating economic activity receive a “less strict” test because their “subject matter is often more narrow, and because businesses, which face economic demands to plan behavior carefully, can be expected to consult relevant legislation in advance of action.” [citation omitted]

In other words, one of Wyndham’s arguments deemed potentially viable, i.e., that it should not be held to a standard never actually put forth by the FTC in any prior ruling, will likely be rejected on summary judgment.    According to the Court, the relevant standard “considers a number of relevant factors, including the probability and expected size of reasonably unavoidable harms to consumers given a certain level of cybersecurity and the costs to consumers that would arise from investment in stronger cybersecurity.”  It is this applicable standard that the Court found Wyndham should have been on notice of prior to the FTC Complaint being filed against it.

In a section of the opinion that may come back to haunt Wyndham – as well as future victims of a major data incident, the Court was quite blunt in its assessment as to whether this statutory standard was potentially satisfied.  Id. at 41 (“Wyndham’s as-applied challenge is even weaker given it was hacked not one or two, but three, times. At least after the second attack, it should have been painfully clear to Wyndham that a court could find its conduct failed the cost-benefit analysis. That said, we leave for another day whether Wyndham’s alleged cybersecurity practices do in fact fail, an issue the parties did not brief. We merely note that certainly after the second time Wyndham was hacked, it was on notice of the possibility that a court could find that its practices fail the cost-benefit analysis.”).

The import of this decision obviously reaches well beyond the Third Circuit.  As the only appellate court to affirm the FTC’s authority to enforce what it considers applicable cybersecurity standards — “standards” that no other governmental body uses as aggressively as the FTC, the FTC will have even greater leverage in future settlement agreements.  Given the scorched earth tactics taken during this litigation, it is possible the United States Supreme Court will be asked by Wyndham to weigh in.   There is certainly an argument to be made that Wyndham’s time and money would be better spent mending fences with the FTC.

UPDATE:   On the heels of this victory, the FTC announced on August 28, 2015 that it was going to hold a free “PrivacyCon” conference on January 14, 2016 at its Constitution Center offices.  According to the event description, PrivacyCon will “bring together a diverse group of stakeholders, including whitehat researchers, academics, industry representatives, consumer advocates, academics, and a range of government regulators, to discuss the latest research and trends related to consumer privacy and data security.”  Given that there is a call for “presentations seeking original research on new vulnerabilities and how they might be exploited to harm consumers” hopefully the attendee list to this free event does not have too many “John Smiths” listed.

Judge Esther Salas of the United States District Court of New Jersey ruled today that a Section 5 action brought by the FTC was sustainable against Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (“Wyndham Worldwide”) as well as various corporate affiliates primarily involved in the franchise side of its business.  This decision re-affirmed the FTC ‘s power to regulate “unfair trade practices” based on the failed data security of companies.   Judge Salas denied a motion to dismiss a FTC action based on the alleged violation of both the deception and unfairness prongs of Section 5(a) “in connection with Defendants’ failure to maintain reasonable and appropriate data security for consumers’ sensitive personal information.”  Wyndham Worldwide also looked to dismiss the action given the consumer representations made by some corporate affiliates were not intended to be applicable to all corporate affiliates.

In what Wyndham Worldwide considered a matter of first impression, the Court rejected Wyndham Worldwide’s position that the FTC does not have authority to bring an unfairness claim involving lax data security.  Another allegedly unique aspect of this case turns on the fact the corporate affiliate who initially sustained the data incident and also made most of the representations in question (Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, LLC) was able to implicate its corporate parent.

This decision is a rare judicial affirmation of the FTC’s broad power to assert itself in the data protection activities of companies. Typically, the FTC simply obtains consent as a byproduct of a settlement agreement.  Hacked companies routinely acknowledge the FTC’s power in this regard.

Although this decision merely resolves a motion to dismiss — with liability issues left unresolved, privacy practitioners who visit with the FTC should review Judge Salas’ opinion and continue to track this matter.  Given the hard public positions taken by Wyndham and the FTC,  this case may very well end up in the Third Circuit or even the Supreme Court — eventually leading to an appellate court potentially defining the exact contours of the FTC’s authority to regulate hacked companies.