Cyber and Data Privacy Due Diligence
This is an Insight article, written by a selected partner as part of GIR's co-published content. Read more on Insight
On 25 July 2016, Verizon Communications announced that it would pay US$4.83 billion in cash to purchase Yahoo! Inc. Seven months later, that price was cut by US$350million and Yahoo! agreed to pay 50 per cent of any costs relating to government investigations and private litigation concerning historic data breaches. The reason for the change? Verizon identified two massive undisclosed data breaches during its due diligence, which dramatically changed the value of the transaction.
The Yahoo! transaction highlights an increasingly important aspect of due diligence in today’s data-driven and technology-driven society: cyber and data privacy due diligence. These topics, which were once peripheral to a transaction, have become critical. This chapter discusses some of the key issues that practitioners should consider when analysing a company’s cybersecurity and data privacy practices, including pre-diligence steps, commonly requested diligence items and potential red flags that may signal the need for additional scrutiny.
Overview of cyber due diligence
A critical aspect of any transaction is due diligence. During this process, a purchaser or investor (the Buyer) will typically conduct an in-depth review of the corporation to be acquired (the Target) to accurately value the transaction. This due diligence will also form the basis of the representations and warranties that the Target will include in the transaction documents.
Preparing for diligence: diligence requests
Due diligence, including cyber and privacy due diligence, is not a one-size-fits-all exercise – the Buyer needs to have a basic understanding of the Target’s business to focus on key issues. For example, if a Target only does business with other corporations, due diligence focusing on the protection of personally identifiable information (PII) and credit card information is less important than due diligence focusing on the protection of trade secrets. Conversely, data privacy issues are more important for a consumer-facing Target that collects significant PII. Data privacy requirements also vary significantly depending on the jurisdiction in which the Target operates, as well as where it has customers. As a result, a Buyer should consider the nature of the Target and its data to properly scope and focus due diligence. The following are some of the issues to consider:
- Industry: In the United States, unlike in Europe, cybersecurity and data privacy are not subject to a single overarching regulatory and statutory framework. Instead, the requirements will vary depending on the specific industry. Therefore, for certain industries, such as healthcare and financial services, it is important that diligence questions focus on the requirements that are unique to those industries.
- Customer profile: Having a well-developed understanding of a Target’s customer base prior to conducting due diligence is also important. By identifying the Target’s typical customers (e.g., individuals, other corporations or the government), the Buyer can focus diligence requests on the typical data privacy and cybersecurity issues that arise in companies with the identified customer profile. In particular, companies that provide data processing services to other entities will likely have contractual obligations regarding data protection and privacy. Where the Target’s customers are located can also have a significant effect on the Target’s compliance obligations.
- Location: As the global patchwork of data privacy and cybersecurity laws becomes more complex, it has become more important than ever to understand the jurisdictional scope of a transaction. Where a Target operates and where its customers are located can significantly affect the magnitude of compliance obligations. For many years, the key privacy risk was the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which applies to companies that do business in or target customers in the European Union. In recent years, however, privacy laws have proliferated, making consideration of privacy compliance – and accompanying risk – more complicated. The United States is one prime example, with at least six states having their own privacy laws, each with small but important differences.
- Data collection practices: Understanding the data that a Target typically collects and how it is collected will allow a Buyer to better understand the Target’s data privacy and cybersecurity risks. Care should be taken in analysing any Target that collects particularly sensitive PII, such as biometric data, financial information (in particular, credit card information) and health information. By the same token, companies that collect a lot of data or that purchase large data sets may warrant additional scrutiny.
- Previous incidents: A review of historic cybersecurity incidents can help a Buyer understand whether a Target has system vulnerabilities or inadequate policies and procedures, which may indicate that there are unidentified risks relating to the Target. Certain documents (such as policies and procedures) may warrant more scrutiny for a Target that has a history of breaches and complaints or other incidents.
These initial observations will serve two purposes. First, it will allow the Buyer to tailor its due diligence requests to the specific Target by identifying issues that are likely to be most important to the review. Second, it will allow the Buyer to identify at an early stage the biggest risks to the transaction and ensure that those risks are specifically analysed during the due diligence review. The following are some of the key risks that can be identified in this process:
- Financial industry: Cybersecurity in the financial sector has been an increasing area of focus for US and state regulators. Therefore, cyber diligence should be a specific area of focus for these entities. This diligence should consider whether, for example, the financial institution complies with the New York Department of Financial Services (NY DFS) cybersecurity regulations and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) and implementing regulations such as the Security and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Regulation S-P and the Interagency Guidelines Establishing Information Security Standards, as applicable.
- Healthcare industry: Targets in the healthcare industry may be subject to laws that specify data protection requirements for that sector, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (the HITECH Act).
- Government contractors: Government contractors are subject to a variety of cybersecurity requirements, the most prominent of which is the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Special Publication No. 800-171 (Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Systems and Organizations). Federal government contractors may be required to implement all (Department of Defense contractors and subcontractors) or some (all other federal agency contractors and subcontractors) of the requirements in this standard.
- Companies that collect biometric data: Most laws consider biometric data (fingerprints, retina scans, etc.) to be sensitive data. In particular, the United States has seen a flood of class action litigation against companies that collect biometric data, as a result of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and similar statutes in other states, such as Texas.
- Companies that conduct transactions with credit cards: Any company that collects and processes credit card information is likely to be required to comply with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Systems (PCI DSS).
- Companies with EU customers: The GDPR, which took effect in May 2018, is a sweeping EU data privacy law with broad extraterritorial effect that aims to protect the personal data of EU residents. Companies with EU customers may be in scope of the law or affected by some of its provisions if they process the personal data of EU individuals or receive data from EU entities that are subject to the GDPR.
Using this information, the Buyer can determine a materiality threshold for its diligence process. This materiality threshold is likely to take into account financial, litigation and reputational risk and reflect the Buyer’s appetite for risk and the importance of the Target’s data and IT assets to the value of the transaction overall. For example, diligence on a Target that collects significant PII is likely to have a lower materiality threshold for data breaches – which could cause significant litigation and reputational risks – than diligence on a Target that has little PII. Whatever the materiality threshold, it is important that the Buyer communicates this threshold to the diligence team as well as the Target. Furthermore, a Buyer should periodically re-evaluate the project’s materiality threshold in light of changes in the value of the deal or information uncovered during the diligence process.
Once the Buyer has assembled this information, the next step in the process is to make information requests. The aim of these requests is to allow the Buyer to fully understand the Target’s cybersecurity and data privacy policies. The goal is to ensure that, at the end of the diligence process, the Buyer has:
- analysed any pre-existing data breaches or other actual or threatened data security-related or privacy-related enforcement or litigation;
- understood the PII that the company collects;
- identified sensitive data and data assets;
- evaluated the seller’s cybersecurity and compliance infrastructure;
- analysed the adequacy of the Target’s cybersecurity and privacy policies and procedures, including penetration testing, vulnerability assessments and corrective follow-up; and
- identified cyber-relevant and privacy-relevant terms of key vendor and customer contracts, especially with respect to any indemnification provisions relating to cyber or privacy incidents.
As has been discussed, these requests should consider information that the Buyer already has about the Target. For example, if the Target is a financial institution, these requests will need to address the specific documents that the Target is required to have under the NY DFS regulations and the GLBA Safeguards Rule and Interagency Guidelines. Similarly, diligence on a government contractor should request documents establishing compliance with NIST and other government-mandated standards. Meanwhile, requests to Targets that process credit card transactions may focus on PCI DSS requirements.
In addition to these targeted requests, the Buyer should also ask for information about any historic data breaches, data-related customer or regulatory complaints, enforcement matters or litigation; the Target’s cybersecurity and privacy policies and practices; copies of any existing documents describing the Target’s compliance with applicable laws; documents describing any third-party testing of the Target’s cybersecurity and data privacy practices; and any other existing documents describing the Target’s cyber policies and practices. The Buyer should also consider whether the Target currently has cybersecurity insurance. As diligence is conducted, observations and findings should be cross-referenced, where possible, against both the Target’s documents and industry standards. Any discrepancy will be noteworthy, not necessarily as a red flag but as a subject that requires further diligence to ensure that the deviation does not affect the Target’s valuation or raise concerns about potential future liabilities.
Finally, to complement its targeted diligence requests, a Buyer can obtain some baseline information about a Target by reviewing its website and other background information that is publicly available. This could not only uncover relevant documents, such as online privacy policies or major data breaches or enforcement actions, but also provide clues to inform the diligence process. For example, a Buyer should take care to consider the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), if the Target has offices in California, or other state privacy legislation, if the Target has offices in another state with comprehensive privacy laws. Similarly, a commercial site that appears to offer localisation for the European Union (e.g., prices in EU currencies or language preferences) may provide clues that the GDPR will apply.
Conducting the diligence: policies and procedures
Cyber and data privacy policies and procedures are critical documents to review during due diligence. Depending on the Target, there may be a variety of policies and procedures relating to these topics, including policies regarding security controls, data access and confidentiality, data retention, cyber incident response, disaster recovery, rights of data subjects, data disclosure and sharing, acceptable use of company-issue devices and the use of social media.
The Buyer should have a checklist of the policies and procedures that they expect to see prior to beginning this review. This checklist will be informed by the Buyer’s pre-diligence analysis regarding the Target’s industry, the types of data that are likely to be held and the Target’s customer profile. Using that checklist, the Buyer should aim to make, as a minimum, the following determinations about those policies and procedures.
Do the policies and procedures exist?
Lack of policies is typically a red flag that may warrant re-evaluating the Target’s purchase price and may require disclosure in any purchase agreement.
Are the policies and procedures adequate?
This evaluation should consider not only relevant laws and regulations but also industry best practices, contractual obligations and public representations (e.g., whether internal policies and procedures align with public-facing privacy notices or past statements on the Target company’s data practices). Attention should be given to Targets that are in one of the US industries that are subject to higher data protection standards, such as healthcare. The evaluation should further consider whether the policies and procedures are based on a comprehensive risk assessment of the company or appear to be off-the-shelf policies that do not address the Target’s risk profile.
How often the Target’s policies and procedures are reviewed and updated can also serve as an indicator of the attention the Target pays to data protection. Generally, policies and procedures should be reviewed annually to ensure they remain adequate for the company in light of any changes to its legal or contractual obligations as well as any new risks or vulnerabilities that have been identified (e.g., as a result of a new business initiative). Some policies may also have internally mandated review cycles. Outdated policies and procedures, in particular policies and procedures that predate significant legislative developments, may be a red flag that warrants investigation and remediation.
How does the Target collect and store PII?
Increasingly, one of the biggest risks that corporations face is a data breach that exposes customer PII. Therefore, diligence needs to ensure that the Target is only collecting PII with customer consent (where required), that the Target is taking steps to delete unnecessary historical PII and that the Target is using appropriate safeguards to store the PII. In this regard, it is important to note that Targets subject to the GDPR or US state laws such as the CCPA must have certain policies and procedures in place to fulfil requirements under these laws.
What steps are taken to protect special categories of sensitive data?
Specifically, the Buyer should ensure that the Target has taken reasonable steps to protect any special categories of sensitive data (such as healthcare or financial data) that it holds from unauthorised internal or external access. As part of this process, the Buyer should also evaluate how the seller has identified special categories of sensitive data and whether this identification is overinclusive or underinclusive.
As part of its review of policies and procedures, the Buyer should also request related documents, such as cyber-focused risk assessments, testing records and training logs. These records can serve a variety of purposes; for example, risk assessments may help to identify areas of concern and vulnerability, or help to identify and mitigate legacy risks. Similarly, penetration testing and employee training records, audits and other evaluations can identify any specific historic problems at the Target and provide insight into the attention (or lack thereof) the company has historically paid to cybersecurity and data privacy issues.
Once the Buyer has completed its review of the Target’s policies and procedures and related documents, it will need to consider whether and how any red flags that have been identified can be mitigated. One of the most common data privacy and cybersecurity representations that is included in a purchase agreement is that the seller or Target has adequate policies and procedures relating to its processing of personal data and that these policies comply with applicable laws and regulations, as well as any other obligations the company may have from service agreements, industry standards or public-facing disclosures and communications. A less common representation may go further and state that the seller has made all current and past versions of its policies and procedures available to the Buyer. To the extent that due diligence findings do not support these representations, the Buyer should ensure that these issues are included on any disclosure schedule.
Historical exposure to cybersecurity and data privacy incidents
Understanding historical cyber and data privacy events is also a major area of focus in due diligence.
First, the Buyer needs to understand whether there are any pre-existing risks from an earlier breach or whether there are undisclosed breaches.
Second, the Buyer needs to recognise that companies are increasingly vulnerable to consumer complaints about how their data is handled. For example, the GDPR gives all data subjects in the European Union the right to file a complaint with an empowered regulatory authority or to bring a private suit against companies that do not honour their rights. In the United States, state privacy laws, such as the CCPA, give those states’ residents similar rights, while momentum continues to build for a federal law.
In this environment, Buyers need to understand the risks of past or future data breaches to adequately value the potential liability that they are acquiring from the Target, as well as the steps that the Buyer can take to mitigate that liability. This diligence typically includes evaluating any complaints against the company (including notices of violations and investigations) by individuals and regulatory authorities. The diligence team should also review any incident logs that are available, because the frequency of cybersecurity incidents (whether successful or not) can provide insight into whether the company and its data systems are common targets. Diligence should also include public records searches to identify whether the Target has been subject to any relevant allegations regarding cybersecurity. In addition, this review should be informed by the processes and procedures through which the Target detects, monitors and responds to cybersecurity incidents.
The Buyer should also consider complaints and notices of violations relating to other data privacy issues, such as the failure to respect a data subject’s access rights or non-compliance with restrictions on data sharing. The existence of such complaints may identify an undisclosed liability, while the frequency of violations and complaints can inform the Buyer about the customers (and other data subjects) it is acquiring with the Target. Finally, the Target’s response to such incidents can be a useful data point for understanding the Target’s culture of compliance with cybersecurity and data privacy requirements.
Once the diligence review is complete on this area, the Buyer can protect itself from undisclosed liabilities by adding robust representations and warranties to the purchase agreement. A representation that the Target is not aware of any cybersecurity or data privacy incident (whether successful or not) will provide comfort to the Buyer that it understands the risks before the purchase is finalised. It is important to understand, however, that this representation does not protect against undetected breaches or unknown complaints. In addition, in some circumstances sellers may insist that these representations are limited by a specific look-back period, such as three or five years. This is one reason why thorough diligence on a company’s policies and procedures is so important – a company with a culture of robust cybersecurity policies and effective monitoring is less likely to have undiscovered issues.
Contractual obligations and liabilities
Another area the Buyer should consider is whether the Target has contractual cybersecurity or privacy obligations. There are two types of contractual relationships that may touch on cybersecurity and data privacy – contracts with service providers and contracts with customers – both of which can create obligations and liabilities that extend beyond those imposed by laws and regulations.
In the United States (and most other jurisdictions), a company can be held liable for data privacy and cybersecurity-related incidents caused by third-party service providers. As a result, the Buyer needs to conduct cyber diligence on these entities. At the outset of the diligence process, the Buyer should request a list of all the Target’s service providers and vendors, and any agreements that are above a preset materiality threshold. The focus of this review should be on service providers that have access to the Target’s data, such as IT support, outsourced human resources, software developers, data servers and storage providers, and security providers. The review should include not only the service agreement and primary contracts, but also any terms of service, privacy notices and similarly related and relevant documents.
For service providers, the diligence process should aim to identify what obligations and liabilities are created by these relationships and how the Target mitigates these vulnerabilities. Questions that should be considered include the following:
- Are there adequate provisions in the agreements to provide comfort to the Target that its data is sufficiently protected?
- Are there any reciprocal requirements imposed on the Target company?
- Are there indemnification or allocations of liability provisions?
- What types of data are being shared or processed? Are there specific obligations that arise from those types of data (e.g., HIPAA requirements for health data)?
- Are any jurisdictions involved outside that of the Target? If so, do the agreements and procedures adequately satisfy laws and regulations of both jurisdictions? Are there any cross-border transfer issues?
- Do third-party vendors and service providers have their own vendors and service providers?
- Are the contracts consistent with any applicable Target vendor management policies?
- Are there provisions that address requirements from applicable laws?
The Buyer should also evaluate how the Target selects and monitors these third-party service providers.
The review of customer contracts will focus on any obligations and liabilities in those contracts to which the Target has agreed. The Buyer should evaluate any service agreements, terms of service, privacy notices and other relevant documents that define the customer relationship. The Buyer should also determine whether the Target has made any representations relating to cybersecurity and data privacy when establishing the relationship underlying the transaction and whether those representations appear consistent with the Target’s practices, based on the remainder of the review.
As part of the Buyer’s review, it should also consider the Target company’s cyber insurance policies, if such cover exists. Insurance against data breaches and unintentional privacy violations is becoming increasingly common, both as part of a company’s umbrella cover as well as specifically and separately for companies in industries where data is an area of focus. The policies may provide some comfort by mitigating any identified risks or, conversely, identify areas of greater risk. In conducting this analysis, the Buyer must also confirm that a change of control will not affect the cover.
If a Target company has numerous contractual obligations, the Buyer may consider inserting representations and warranties into the purchase agreement to provide additional comfort that there will not be undue liability because of these obligations. There are two types of representations and warranties that Buyers can add. The first is a representation stating that the seller has provided the Buyer with all agreements with vendors and third parties during the diligence process. The second goes further, stating that the seller has complied with its privacy and data security contractual obligations. Both representations are less common than some of the representations and warranties described previously, but it may be relevant to include them if some of these issues are uncovered during due diligence and cannot be addressed in other ways.
Other common areas of focus
Depending on the characteristics of the Target and the context of the transaction, there are a variety of other areas that cyber diligence may include, such as compliance with public representations and industry standards, and the security of the company’s IT infrastructure.
In addition to complying with laws and regulations relating to data privacy and cybersecurity, a company may also have obligations that stem from its public representations or from industry standards and best practices. In the United States, for example, (as discussed further in the chapter titled ‘FTC Investigations and Multistate AG Investigations’) the primary federal watchdog for data privacy and cybersecurity issues is the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which derives its authority from the Federal Trade Commission Act (the FTC Act), which in turn prohibits unfair and deceptive commercial practices. Although the FTC has broadly interpreted the FTC Act to require companies to provide ‘reasonable’ protections for sensitive consumer data, its primary enforcement focus is on ensuring that companies comply with prior statements, such as posted privacy policies or advertisements that tout a company’s security measures. A Target that is diligent about cybersecurity and data privacy issues will keep track of such statements and advertisements (or lack thereof) and document its compliance with the Act to protect against an FTC complaint or enforcement action. The Buyer should therefore request such records to consider whether they raise any red flags. The Buyer may also request representations and warranties that provide assurances that the company has materially complied with all such statements and advertisements, particularly if its records regarding compliance are not comprehensive.
On a more general level, the Buyer should also request any records or documents that the Target has that can provide insight into its IT infrastructure and technology inventory, such as network diagrams. These records will help the Buyer to analyse its data mapping and identify security vulnerabilities. The Buyer may also want to consider whether the Target company’s security measures align with the needs and complexity of a Target company’s IT infrastructure and technology. Once diligence is complete, a Buyer may request representations and warranties to provide assurance that the Target company has adequate (i.e., commercially reasonable) security measures in place.
Addressing red flags
As the diligence process nears its close, the Buyer should consider the red flags that have been identified and determine whether and how they can be mitigated.
Some issues can be addressed by the Target prior to conclusion of the transaction. For these issues, pre-closing conditions or covenants can be used to ensure that the Target addresses these issues. Generally, this will only work for discrete concerns that can be resolved quickly or concerns that may become more complicated once the transaction is concluded. For example, a pending data access request needs to be addressed quickly, as waiting until the transaction closes will only increase the risk of liability. The Buyer can confirm that the Target has addressed these pre-closing conditions and covenants prior to closing either through additional diligence or the use of representations and warranties confirming that the conditions and covenants have been met.
Other issues may be addressed through representations and warranties in the purchase agreement, which can be integrated into existing sections of a purchase agreement (e.g., compliance with laws) or can form their own separate section. Typically, sellers argue that such representations and warranties should be based on a materiality threshold or on the knowledge of the company or certain officers of the company (or both). The seller’s materiality threshold will typically be higher than the one used by the Buyer, but it will be determined by considering many of the same factors as a Buyer will consider in setting its own materiality threshold for its diligence process.
There are more general representations and warranties that a Buyer may consider using to mitigate risks. One common representation that a Buyer may request from a seller has to do with the transaction itself – that, to the best of the seller’s knowledge, there will be no adverse effects from the transaction, such as a violation of any applicable laws, internal or external policies and procedures, prior statements or other obligations. An obvious example of this would be a provision in a third-party contract that gives a counterparty the right to terminate the relationship in the event of a change in control.
Purchase price adjustments are another mechanism that a Buyer can use to allocate cyber risk. Specifically, if the Target is unwilling to agree to either pre-closing conditions or representations and warranties, the Buyer may instead be able to negotiate an adjustment in price to account for the costs of remediation or the expected cost of uncovered liabilities and obligations.
Another method a Buyer can use to mitigate the cyber risks identified during its due diligence review is to purchase representations and warranties insurance (R&W insurance). R&W insurance can be purchased by either the Buyer or the Target, but Buyer-side policies are generally more common since Targets generally prefer to limit their continued liability. R&W insurance for Buyers also tends to provide broader cover and longer indemnification periods. A Buyer may offer to purchase R&W insurance in return for the Target’s agreement to specific representations and warranties. A Buyer should consider how the cost of such insurance will change the value of the transaction. In addition, R&W insurers will often rely on the Buyer’s due diligence when considering whether and how to provide R&W insurance, including cyber insurance. Thus, if a Buyer’s cyber diligence uncovers potential liabilities or does not contain adequate bases for its conclusions, an underwriter may insist on exclusions, such as for historic cybersecurity incidents.
Once the Buyer has done all it can during the transaction negotiation to account for the red flags it has identified during its cyber diligence, it should consider how these will inform its plans to integrate the Target. An extended discussion of post-acquisition issues is beyond the scope of this chapter, but common issues that arise include:
- considering how best to incorporate the Target’s database and IT assets into the Buyer’s existing IT infrastructure;
- retrofitting the Buyer’s cybersecurity policies and procedures to account for any unique cybersecurity obligations or vulnerabilities that the Target company has;
- transferring and converting key data into a format that is compatible with the Buyer’s systems;
- remediating any identified red flags that were not addressed prior to closing; and
- implementing monitoring protocols to ensure the Target continues to comply with its data privacy and cybersecurity obligations.
In addition, the Buyer should ensure that it takes into account the newly acquired company when it considers the practicality and lawfulness of its future plans (e.g., ensuring that expansion plans adequately account for any effects on the Target’s operations).
The global average total cost of a data breach in 2022 was US$4.35 million, and the likelihood of such a cyber incident is greater than ever before as companies deal with new risks from remote working, ransomware and increasingly sophisticated threat actors. The massive data breaches that have affected some of the biggest companies in the world show that every company is vulnerable to a data breach, regardless of the strength of its policies and procedures and how robust its IT security infrastructure is. Meanwhile, privacy regulators across the globe have continued to ramp up enforcement, meaning compliance risks – and costs – continue to rise. Until recently, these risks were not fully understood, and cyber and privacy due diligence may have been an afterthought in the due diligence process. Today it is a necessity. This chapter has addressed some of the key issues that a Buyer should consider in the diligence process as well as some of the key red flags, but a full description of cyber and privacy due diligence could easily fill a book. Therefore, to adequately conduct this diligence, it is critical that the Buyer use a professional team that understands data protection risks and the specific material issues that Targets in a specific industry are likely to face.
 Megan Gordon and Daniel Silver are partners and Benjamin Berringer and Brian Yin are associates at Clifford Chance US LLP.
 Verizon, ‘Verizon to acquire Yahoo’s operating business’ (25 July 2016) (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/verizon-to-acquire-yahoos-operating-business-300303133.html (last accessed 26 April 2023)).
 Verizon, ‘Verizon and Yahoo amend terms of definitive agreement’ (21 February 2017) (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/verizon-and-yahoo-amend-terms-of-definitive-agreement-300410420.html (last accessed 11 April 2023)). The revised agreement’s cost-sharing provision excluded investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation) (GDPR).
 Among other requirements, the New York Department of Financial Services (NY DFS) cybersecurity regulations require that regulated entities carry out a risk assessment in accordance with written policies and procedures, which must include: (1) criteria for evaluation and categorisation of threats; (2) criteria for assessment of confidentiality, integrity security and availability of the DFS-licensed entity’s information systems and non-public information; and (3) requirements describing risk mitigation or acceptance. Regulated entities must also maintain systems that are designed to reconstruct material financial transactions and keep audit trails designed to detect and respond to a cybersecurity event that has a reasonable likelihood of materially harming any material part of the normal operation of the entity. See NY Comp. Codes Rules & Regs Title 23, Section 500.
 15 U.S.C. §2801, et seq.
 Regulation S-P requires covered entities to have policies and procedures to address the protection of customer information and records. Regulation S-P, 17 CFR §248.30.
 The Interagency Guidelines Establishing Information Security Standards establish standards for administrative, technical and physical safeguards to ensure the security, confidentiality, integrity and proper disposal of customer information. 12 CFR Part 30, app. B (OCC); 12 CFR Part 208, app. D-2 and Part 225, app. F (Board); 12 CFR Part 364, app. B (FDIC); and 12 CFR Part 570, app. B (OTS).
 The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act [HIPAA] Security Rule and the HIPAA Privacy Rule require the adoption and maintenance of reasonable and appropriate administrative, technical and physical safeguards for protecting personal health data. See HIPAA Security Rule, 45 CFR §160, 164; HIPAA Privacy Rule, 45 CFR §§160, 164.
 The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act [HITECH] Act strengthens the civil and criminal enforcement of HIPAA rules that protect health information transmitted electronically. See HITECH Act, 42 USC §300jj et seq., §17901 et seq.
 See NIST, Special Publication No. 800-171, Rev. 2, ‘Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Systems and Organizations’ (updated 28 January 2021) (https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-171/rev-2/final (last accessed 26 April 2023)).
 The Payment Card Industry Data Security Systems (PCI DSS) applies to all companies that store, process or share cardholder data and consists of technical and operational practices required for systems that store and use this data. See PCI DSS v4.0 (March 2022) (https://docs-prv.pcisecuritystandards.org/PCI%20DSS/Standard/PCI-DSS-v4_0.pdf (note: users may first need to accept a licence agreement) (last accessed 22 May 2023)).
 For example, the NY DFS cybersecurity regulations require covered entities to have written policies approved by the board of directors that describe the cybersecurity programme in place to protect consumers’ private data, records of risk assessments, audit trails, and various notices and certifications submitted to the superintendent.
 The PCI DSS consists of 12 broad requirements that make up six groups entitled ‘control objectives’.
 GDPR, Article 77.
 As at March 2023, there is not yet any federal privacy law, but there is significant support for such legislation and several draft bills under consideration by the US Congress, including at least one version with a private right of action.
 For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act requires covered entities to have specific contractual provisions in place with service providers to address the law’s requirements.