DataBreaches.net

DataBreaches.net

The Office of Inadequate Security

Menu
  • Breach Laws
  • About
  • Donate
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • Transparency Reports
Menu

NJ district court certifies two issues for interlocutory appeal in FTC v. Wyndham

Posted on June 24, 2014June 24, 2014 by Dissent

In April, Judge Esther Salas denied Wyndham’s motion to dismiss the FTC’s complaint stemming from what the FTC alleges were unreasonable data security practices that put consumers at risk of harm. The FTC’s complaint was brought under Section 5 of the FTC Act, and Wyndham had challenged their authority to enforce data security as well as their enforcement in the absence of previously promulgated rules or regulations.  Wyndham subsequently moved to certify the Order for interlocutory appeal.  Yesterday, Salas granted that motion over the FTC’s opposition. There was no oral argument on the motion and Salas had denied the application of amici to brief on the issue, saying that their assistance was not needed by the court in resolving Wyndham’s motion to certify.

Wyndham is seeking to appeal two of the three main issues they had raised in their motion to dismiss. From the court’s memorandum opinion and order:

In its motion, Hotels and Resorts seeks interlocutory appellate review of the Court’s Order concerning the following two legal issues relating to the FTC’s unfairness count: “(1) whether Congress has delegated to the Federal Trade Commission . . . generalized statutory authority to regulate data security practices; and (2) if so, whether the FTC has provided regulated entities adequate notice of what data-security practices are required.” (WHR’s Motion to Certify at 1). Hotels and Resorts, therefore, does not seek to certify the Court’s Order relating to the FTC’s deception count or the sufficiency of pleading for both the unfairness and deception counts. Furthermore, Hotels and Resorts does not seek a stay pending interlocutory appellate review. (D.E. No. 197, Reply in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Certify Order Denying Motion to Dismiss (ECF. No. 182) for Interlocutory Appeal at 3 (“WHR’s Reply”) at 2).

After reviewing the two issues of controlling law raised by Wyndham’s motion and considering the standards for granting certification of the order, Judge Salas writes:

The Court recognizes that “interlocutory certification should be used sparingly and that the District Court should serve as a diligent gatekeeper to prevent premature and piecemeal appeals.” Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, 2013 WL 663301, at *5. But the circumstances here appear sufficiently exceptional to justify certification for interlocutory appellate review.

In so concluding, the Court has carefully considered its April 7, 2014 Opinion, the parties’ voluminous submissions and lengthy arguments concerning Hotels and Resorts’ motion to dismiss, the absence of precedent directly addressing the pure questions of law at issue here, the procedural posture of the instant action, the standard for granting interlocutory appellate review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), and, importantly, the nationwide significance of the issues in this action — which indisputably affect consumers and businesses in a climate where we collectively struggle to maintain privacy while enjoying the benefits of the digital age.

So the two questions certified for appeal are:

(1) Whether the Federal Trade Commission can bring an unfairness claim involving data security under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); and

(2) Whether the Federal Trade Commission must formally promulgate regulations before bringing its unfairness claim under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a);

Neither of the above will likely surprise anyone following the case. So now let’s see what happens at the appellate level.

h/t, Eric Goldman

Related Posts:

  • Federal court denies Wyndham Hotels & Resorts'…
  • Wyndham submits new data security and breach bills…
  • Wyndham's motion to dismiss FTC data security…
  • A good day for the FTC in federal court?
  • Breaking down the court's decision in FTC v. Wyndham…

Post navigation

← Update: NY: Two plead guilty to Albany Medical Center identity theft charges
Encrypted Web traffic can reveal highly sensitive information →

Sponsored or Paid Posts

This site doesn’t accept sponsored posts and doesn’t respond to requests about them.

Have a News Tip?

Email:

Breaches[at]Protonmail.ch
Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Telegram: @DissentDoe

Browse by News Section

Latest Posts

  • Update: Cardiovascular Consultants Ltd. ransomware attack reportedly affected 500,000 patients, guarantors, and staff
  • Data breach by Addenbrooke’s Hospital reveals patient information
  • Millions of patient scans and health records spilling online thanks to decades-old protocol bug
  • Cybersecurity: Federal Agencies Made Progress, but Need to Fully Implement Incident Response Requirements (GAO Report)
  • Hackers Exploited ColdFusion Vulnerability to Breach Federal Agency Servers
  • CBIZ KA Notice of Data Privacy Incident (Prime Healthcare)
  • Seeking clarification on Maine’s data breach notification statute
  • East River Medical Imaging notifies 605,809 patients of breach

Please Donate

If you can, please donate XMR to our Monero wallet because the entities whose breaches we expose are definitely not supporting our work and are generally trying to chill our speech!

Donate- Scan QR Code   Donate!

Social Media

Find me on Infosec.Exchange.

I am also on Telegram @DissentDoe.

RSS

Grab the RSS Feed

Copyright

© 2009 – 2023, DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.

HIGH PRAISE, INDEED!

“You translate “Nerd” into understandable “English” — Victor Gevers of GDI Foundation, talking about DataBreaches.net

©2023 DataBreaches.net