DataBreaches.Net

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

Contracting in the Cloud: Who Pays for a Data Breach?

Posted on October 5, 2016 by Dissent

In a recent white paper I co-authored with Protenus, Inc., we noted the significant risks of a breach involving a vendor or business associate. In following up in a subsequent post, I also included a “pop quiz” for readers to use to test their understanding about the terms of any contract they have in terms of responsibilities following a breach.

Now Scott Nonaka and Kevin Rubino have written a more lawyerly analysis about contractual clauses that may be very important in determining who pays for what in the event of a breach involving a cloud service. Here’s part of their article:

Although much is at stake, the answer to the question is not always clear because allocating costs will usually depend on the terms of the cloud services contract, which in most cases will contain a limitation of liability clause that is commonplace in contracts for the sale of goods and services. Standard clauses usually state that, in the event of a breach, neither party will be responsible for the other party’s “consequential damages,” thereby limiting their potential liability to “direct damages.” While the clause may seem clearly worded, the meaning of the term “consequential damages” is by no means clear, let alone in the context of a cloud services contract. Below, we identify some issues to consider when negotiating and drafting a limitation of liability clause so as to provide greater clarity and predictability in allocating risk and costs.

[…]

At this time, and for the foreseeable future, it will be difficult to predict with great certainty how courts will decide whether any particular harm arising from a data breach is direct or consequential damages. Given this uncertainty, as well as the potentially massive costs associated with a data breach, both consumers and providers of cloud services would be well-advised not to rely on standard, boilerplate language in limitation of liability clauses that simply waives consequential damages to allocate their potential liability. They should instead address the issue of potential future costs associated with a data breach in detail at the outset of their relationship by bargaining for and expressly assigning or excluding those costs in their agreement.

Read more on Bloomberg BNA.


Related:

  • Two more entities have folded after ransomware attacks
  • British institutions to be banned from paying ransoms to Russian hackers
  • Global hack on Microsoft product hits U.S., state agencies, researchers say
  • Michigan ‘ATM jackpotting’: Florida men allegedly forced machines to dispense $107K
  • Missouri Adopts New Data Breach Notice Law
  • More than 100 British government personnel exposed by Ministry of Defence data leak
Category: Commentaries and AnalysesOf NoteU.S.

Post navigation

← Man arrested for streaming porn to electronic billboard
Feds rehire contractor linked to massive OPM data breach →

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

  • BlackSuit ransomware site seized as part of Operation Checkmate
  • The day after XSS.is forum was seized, it struggles to come back online — but is it really them?
  • U.S. nuclear and health agencies hit in Microsoft SharePoint breach
  • Russia suspected of hacking Dutch prosecution service systems
  • Korea imposes 343 million won penalty on HAESUNG DS for data breach of 70,000 shareholders
  • Paying cyberattackers is wrong, right? Should Taos County’s incident be an exception? (1)
  • HHS OCR Settles HIPAA Ransomware Investigation with Syracuse ASC for $250k plus corrective action plan
  • IVF provider Genea notifies patients about the cyberattack earlier this year.
  • Key figure behind major Russian-speaking cybercrime forum targeted in Ukraine
  • Clorox Files $380M Suit Alleging Cognizant Gave Hackers Passwords in Catastrophic 2023 Cyberattack

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

  • Indonesia asked to reassess data privacy terms in new U.S. trade deal
  • Meta Denies Tracking Menstrual Data in Flo Health Privacy Trial
  • Wikipedia seeks to shield contributors from UK law targeting online anonymity
  • British government reportedlu set to back down on secret iCloud backdoor after US pressure
  • 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

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.