DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

The Merchants Strike Back?

Posted on December 7, 2009 by Dissent

David Navetta has a thought-provoking article over on InformationLawGroup that begins:

With the recent news of several restaurants teaming up to sue point-of-sale system provider Radiant Systems (a copy of the complaint can be found here) for failing to comply with the PCI Standard, it appears that some merchants may be in a mood to strike back in the aftermath of a payment card security breach. This lawsuit comes in the wake of a couple lawsuits against payment card security assessor Savvis for allegedly failing to properly validate a processors’ Visa CISP compliance (admittedly in this case it is the merchant bank suing the assessor, but a similar cause of action could exist for a merchant if its assessor makes a mistake in verifying PCI compliance). While two instances certainly don’t indicate a trend, they do indicate a potential route that merchants may consider to deflect liability arsing out of a payment card security breach.

It is possible that we will see more lawsuits by merchants against service providers, payment processors, and application/point-of-sale system providers in the coming months and years. Part of the reason is that the PCI regulatory system imposes a form of “strict liability” on merchants that suffer a security breach. Fines, penalties and the availability of recovery processes are contingent (in part) on whether or not a merchant was PCI-compliant at the time of the breach (see e.g. Visa’s ADCR). Thus, when a Qualified Incident Response Assessor (“QIRA”) comes in after a credit card breach to do an audit one of its main tasks (if not its primary goal) is to ascertain whether the merchant was PCI-compliant.

Lost in the shuffle sometimes, however, is the issue of “causation.” The question that is not being asked is whether or not PCI compliance would have prevented the breach, or whether the lack of PCI-compliance was the cause of the breach. In other words would PCI-compliance have made a difference. In some cases the answer is obvious. For example, if a merchant is holding onto sensitive authentication information, clearly PCI compliance (which requires the deletion of such data after a transaction) would have precluded a payment card breach. In other situations, however, the answer might not be as clear cut.

Read more here.


Related:

  • Qantas obtains injunction to prevent hacked data’s release
  • Ransomware attack disrupts Korea's largest guarantee insurer
  • Theft from Glasgow’s Queen Elizabeth University Hospital sparks probe
  • Global operation targets NoName057(16) pro-Russian cybercrime network in Operation Eastwood
  • More than 100 British government personnel exposed by Ministry of Defence data leak
  • New TeleMessage SGNL Flaw Is Actively Being Exploited by Attackers
Category: Commentaries and Analyses

Post navigation

← Blumenthal suspects HealthNet disk was stolen
Privacy concerns raised over "secondary use" of health records →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • UK sanctions Russian cyber spies accused of facilitating murders
  • Michigan ‘ATM jackpotting’: Florida men allegedly forced machines to dispense $107K
  • Premier Health Partners issues a press release about a breach two years ago. Why was this needed now?
  • Bitcoin holds steady as hackers drain over $40 million from CoinCDX, India’s top exchange
  • Government will ‘robustly defend’ compensation claims from Afghans put at risk by data breach
  • Authorities released free decryptor for Phobos and 8base ransomware
  • Singapore Facing ‘Serious’ Cyberattack by Espionage Group With Alleged China Ties
  • Missouri Adopts New Data Breach Notice Law
  • Qantas obtains injunction to prevent hacked data’s release
  • Ransomware attack disrupts Korea’s largest guarantee insurer

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Idaho agrees not to prosecute doctors for out-of-state abortion referrals
  • As companies race to add AI, terms of service changes are going to freak a lot of people out. Think twice before granting consent!
  • 𝐔𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐆𝐨𝐨𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚‑𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝟑𝟎 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠.
  • Meta investors, Zuckerberg reach settlement to end $8 billion trial over Facebook privacy violations
  • ICE is gaining access to trove of Medicaid records, adding new peril for immigrants
  • Microsoft can’t protect French data from US government access
  • Texas Enacts Electronic Health Record Data Localization Law

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.