Proposed Legislation Regarding Data Breaches Not Good For the Consumer

In the wake of massive security breaches that reportedly took place before and during the height of the holiday shopping season at Target, Nieman Marcus and, security experts say, probably other retailers as well, federal lawmakers have introduced a bipartisan bill that would impose new requirements on companies concerning the protection of confidential information related to credit and debit cards.

In actuality, what the proposed legislation, named the Data Security Act of 2014, would do is to greatly reduce consumer rights to seek redress for their damages through the courts. The legislation would ultimately ban private causes of actions, prohibit class actions, and prevent the consumer to sue under state law causes of action.

Introduced last week by Sens. Tom Carper (D.-Del.) and Roy Blount (R-Mo.), the Data Security Act would provide enhanced consumer security by providing uniform national standards in place of a patchwork of state laws that now exist, according to a press release. It would also require not only retailers but financial institutions and federal agencies to investigate security breaches and inform consumers. While this all sounds great, it leaves the individual who was actually harmed with little or no remedies through the courts at all.

There are several competing bills which have also been proposed. Those bills seek more severe criminal penalties against the computer hackers and those who conceal security breaches. Unfortunately, the hackers who cause the mayhem are seldom caught and prosecuted, hiding behind the anonymity of the internet and remote areas where U.S. law enforcement has little or no reach.

Some States have no statutes that protect the individual consumer, letting claimants rely on common law causes of action. This bill would potentially strip consumers from even those tools to recover against a company like Target.

NCAA Loses Another Battle In O'Bannon Lawsuit

The NCAA has lost an appeal in the O'Bannon likeness lawsuit. Players in the suit settled their claims against EA Sports and Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC). EA Sports is the video game designer and producer of the extremely popular college football games and CLC is the company that licenses and trademarks college marks and promotes those marks. The NCAA sought relief from the United States Supreme Court over the settlement. The NCAA wanted to intervene in the settlement to derail the agreement, but the Supreme Court denied the NCAA's request. For more information, see the links below:

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/Supreme-Court-rejects-NCAA-bid-to-halt-EA-Sports-settlement-011514?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Foxsports%2Frss%2FCFB+(FOXSports.com+News+for+COLLEGE+FOOTBALL)

http://www.cbssports.com/general/eye-on-sports/24408975/supreme-court-denies-ncaas-attempt-to-halt-likeness-settlement-

Judge Rules NFL Concussion Settlement Needs More Work For Approval

A lot of press has been released over a Federal District Judge’s “rejection” of the NFL concussion settlement. The truth is that Judge Anita B. Brody did not give preliminary approval to the settlement, giving the parties leave to supply her with more information on the settlement. Although this is not the same as an outright approval, it is not as gloom and doom as most sources are making it out. In actuality, both the Plaintiffs’ representatives and lawyers for the NFL want this settlement approved. This is not the same situation we have in the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill settlement BP (see my previous blog posts on that subject).

What Judge Brody did was to ask the parties for more financial analysis and information. Her main concern was that not all retired NFL players who would qualify for the settlement would get paid. The settlement is designed to last at least 65 years.

Under the current agreement, awards would vary based on an ex-player's age and diagnosis. A younger retiree with Lou Gehrig's disease would get $5 million, those with serious dementia cases would get $3 million, and an 80-year-old with early dementia would get $25,000. Retirees without symptoms would get baseline screening and follow-up care if needed.

The proposed settlement would include $675 million for compensatory claims for players with neurological symptoms; $75 million for baseline testing for asymptomatic men; and $10 million for medical research and education. The NFL also would pay an additional $112 million to the players' lawyers for their fees and expenses, for a total payout of nearly $900 million.

Although this ruling is a setback, both sides are confident a deal can get done and approved by Judge Brody. How much, or to what extent, the agreement will need to be tweaked is unknown. The parties could show Judge Brody more financial analysis to assure her the money will last or raise the fund amount to ease her concerns. They also could try to start over.