While 2025 may have brought questions about the level of enforcement we would see from federal regulators, there was no question that state regulators would continue to be active, especially in the financial privacy space. In 2025, we saw the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) implement the final phases of amendments to its NYDFS Cybersecurity Regulation (23 NYCRR Part 500) that originally passed back in 2023 (see our earlier post on the amendments here). The final implementation phases milestones came as scheduled in May and November 2025, and just days before the final set of requirements took effect on November 1, NYDFS also issued new industry guidance on managing third-party risks. Taken together, the guidance and final amendments underscore what NYDFS will be scrutinizing in upcoming investigations and examinations: leadership oversight and documentation, complete asset inventories governed by clear policies, strict access controls and privilege management, universal multi-factor authentication coverage or well‑justified compensating controls, and credible third‑party risk management evidence.Continue Reading On the Tenth Day of Data… Looking Back at 2025 and Ahead to NYDFS Enforcement Priorities in 2026

The continued absence of a comprehensive federal privacy law once again positioned state legislatures as the primary forces behind data privacy developments in the U.S. this year. In 2025, eight new comprehensive state privacy laws took effect, adding to a growing patchwork of regulations that now spans 20 states. These laws generally reinforce established standards but introduce some important differences in applicability, exemptions, and sensitive data protections, making multi-state compliance increasingly complex.

States also continued to refine their data breach notification requirements, with notable amendments in New York, California, and Oklahoma aimed at strengthening consumer protections and reporting standards. Meanwhile, the rapid proliferation of state-level AI legislation—alongside a controversial new executive order directing federal agencies to challenge such laws—added a new layer of considerations for businesses leveraging artificial intelligence. With additional privacy laws set to take effect in 2026 and even stricter proposals on the horizon, organizations should remain proactive in adapting to this dynamic and increasingly fragmented regulatory environment.Continue Reading On the Ninth Day of Data… State of the States: This Year’s Key Privacy Law Developments Across the U.S. States

An increasingly aggressive plaintiffs’ bar has brought purported class action suits based on the nearly ubiquitous use of tracking technologies used for website analytics. Although any actual harm to the plaintiffs is difficult to articulate, the health care industry has been plagued by a series of these cases. Now the plaintiffs may be moving to financial services with the potential for statutory penalties of hundreds of dollars per user when a duty of confidentiality can be credibly implicated. 

The tracking tags, pixels and similar website analytics technologies are nothing new. Rather, the technologies at issue in such complaints are widely used on websites and mobile applications across industries, including by government entities, to collect information about user behaviors and interactions with the online platform where they are embedded. That information is then sent to a third party for analytics used to enhance user experience on the platform. Many of these technologies are integral to an organization’s ability to ensure its websites and applications are functioning properly, among other things providing crash reports when users encounter issues. Additionally, many consumer-facing businesses contract with third parties to provide session replay scripts, a software that monitors and records web-user activity such as keystrokes, clicks, and scrolling.  Despite the pervasiveness of these technologies, plaintiffs have seized on ambiguities in the California state wiretap act, known as the California Information Privacy Act, as well as federal wiretap law as the basis for exceptionally large damage demands.Continue Reading Pixel Litigation Risk at Financial Institutions

In December 2024, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law two bills (A8872A and S2376B; collectively, the “Bills”) that amend New York’s Data Breach Notification Law.1 The Bills introduce a maximum thirty-day timeframe for notifying affected New York residents of a reportable “breach of the security of the system”2 under

While there are many significant federal laws and regulations related to cybersecurity, states have led the way in regulating this area on a general, sector-agnostic basis, with the most notable and widely acknowledged state cybersecurity provisions being state data breach notification laws.  However, more recently, states have focused on passing comprehensive privacy, rather than security, laws, and 2025 promises to be a continuation of this trend, with eight additional comprehensive state privacy laws coming into effect next year.  Continue Reading Making a List and Checking it Twice:  Navigating State Privacy and Security Regulations This Year

Throughout 2024, financial sector regulators sharpened their focus on data protection and cybersecurity issues impacting financial institutions and the public. Key federal agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) have been joined by state regulators, such as the New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”), in proposing and finalizing significant rulemaking, pursuing novel enforcement actions, and issuing influential guidance. 2025 promises to be a continuation of this considerable trend.  Continue Reading Dashing Through Cybersecurity Regulations in the Financial Services Sector in 2024

On October 2, 2024, the New York State Department of Health (“NYSDOH”) finalized and adopted new hospital cybersecurity regulations. Effective immediately, hospitals in New York State are required to report to NYSDOH as promptly as possible, but not later than 72 hours after, determining that a cybersecurity incident has occurred. A cybersecurity incident is an

On Friday, August 2, Governor J.B. Pritzker of Illinois signed into law SB2979, an amendment to the state’s landmark biometric privacy law. The amendment offers a welcome step forward to correcting the rapid overexpansion of potential damages associated with violations of the law without curbing any of its privacy protections. The measure amends the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) in two significant ways. First, the law, as amended now expressly includes electronic signatures as a form of “written release.” Second, the amendment limits actions for recovery to a maximum of one violation per plaintiff, rather than one violation per instance of collection or transmission of biometric information. This post examines the amendment and its impacts on businesses collecting biometric information in the state. We also highlight notable biometric privacy developments in Texas.Continue Reading Biometric Privacy Update: Illinois Legislature Balances BIPA, but Don’t Mess with Texas