Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: March 4, 2020
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comNew York’s “Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security Handling Act,” better known as the SHIELD Act, takes effect on March 21, 2020. Businesses must review their information security programs to assess the private information they collect and implement data security requirements specified in the SHIELD Act.

The SHIELD Act broadens the scope of information covered under New York’s existing data breach notification law and updates the notification requirements when there has been a breach of data. Notably, the new law’s data breach notification requirements apply to any person or entity with private information of a New York resident, not just to those that conduct business in New York State. That means New Jersey businesses, specifically, and all business, generally, with employees and/or customers in New York will also be subject to these new compliance obligations.
Under the SHIELD Act, “any person or business that owns or licenses computerized data which includes private information of a resident of New York shall develop, implement and maintain reasonable safeguards to protect the security, confidentiality and integrity of the private information including, but not limited to, disposal of data.” Small businesses, defined as those with less than 50 employees and under $3 million in gross revenue; or less than $5 million in assets, will be deemed compliant if they “implement and maintain reasonable safeguards that are appropriate to the size and complexity of the small business to protect the security, confidentiality and integrity of the private information.”
The bill also contains a carve-out for certain other businesses. It provides that “certified compliant entities,” defined as those already regulated by, and compliant with, existing or future regulations of any federal or New York State government entity (including NYS DFS regulations; regulations under Gramm-Leach-Bliley; Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) regulations, or with International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) cybersecurity standards, will receive safe harbor from enforcement actions under the SHIELD Act.
The SHIELD Act broadens the scope of information covered under New York’s existing data breach notification law, the NYS Information Security Breach and Notification Act. Existing regulations only applied to personally-identifying information that included social security numbers. Under the SHIELD Act, the definition of private information is expanded to include “any information concerning a natural person which, because of name, number, personal mark, or other identifier, can be used to identify such natural person.”
The statute’s data protection and data breach notification obligations apply to “private information” in combination with one, or more of the following data sets:
The definition of a data breach will also be expanded to include unauthorized access to private information. New York’s previous data breach law only covered the unauthorized acquisition of computerized data. Under the SHIELD Act, the definition of “breach of the security of the system” is expanded to include unauthorized “access” of computerized data that compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of private information, and it provides sample indicators of access. In determining whether information has been accessed, or is reasonably believed to have been accessed, by an unauthorized person or a person without valid authorization, such business may consider, among other factors, indications that the information was viewed, communicated with, used, or altered by a person without valid authorization or by an unauthorized person.
Failure to provide required reasonable data security will be considered be a violation of section 349 of the General Business Law, thereby authorizing New York’s Attorney General to bring suit against any business for noncompliance. Businesses may be fined $5,000 for each violation or up to $20 per instance of failed notification, provided that the latter’s aggregate amount doesn’t exceed $250,000. The upside for businesses is that the SHIELD Act does not create a private right of action.
It is pertinent for businesses to review their information security programs to assess the private information they collect and implement data security requirements specified in the SHIELD Act. This is a time-consuming and complex process. The compliance date is looming and business are best served if they begin their review process sooner rather than later.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Maryam Meseha, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Business mediation is a confidential, voluntary process in which a neutral third party helps companies negotiate a resolution to a commercial dispute without going to trial. Because working with a mediator is very different from litigating in the courtroom, it is important to understand how commercial mediation works, when it makes sense for your dispute, […]
Author: Paul Grossman

The five most common causes of construction defect litigation are design defects, substandard materials, workmanship defects, code violations, and subsurface defects. Because these flaws can compromise a building’s integrity, functionality, or safety, they frequently lead to disputes involving multiple parties and high financial stakes. Key takeaways: What is Construction Defect Litigation? Construction litigation is complex, […]
Author: Paul Grossman

The most effective ways to protect your business in a divorce are put in place before one begins: a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement, clean separation of business and personal finances, and divorce contingencies built into your operating or buy-sell agreements. If divorce is already underway, the priorities shift to establishing how the business is classified […]
Author: Jay McDaniel

The most common franchise disputes involve breach of contract, franchise termination and non-renewal, intellectual property rights, territorial encroachment, royalty and fee payments, franchisor support obligations, and violations of state franchise laws such as the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act. Franchisors and franchisees can often resolve these conflicts by providing written notice detailing the dispute and […]
Author: Paul Grossman

New Jersey businesses must manage legal and reputational risk together because modern disputes play out on two fronts at once: the legal proceeding itself and the court of public opinion, where customers, employees, investors, and business partners often reach conclusions long before a judge or jury has had the opportunity to evaluate the facts. Success […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

No. An eviction does not automatically end a tenant’s obligation to pay rent. Post-eviction rent claims are common because recovering possession resolves who has the right to occupy the premises, but it does not extinguish the tenant’s contractual obligations under the lease. Whether unpaid or future rent remains owed depends on three factors: the lease’s […]
Author: Donald M. Pepe
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!