Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On February 12, 2024, a federal court in the Southern District of Ohio issued an order granting a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, prohibiting the Ohio Attorney General from implementing and enforcing the Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act, Ohio Rev. Code § 1349.09(B)(1) (the “Act”).

On January 9, 2024, an Ohio federal judge placed a temporary restraining order on Ohio’s Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act, Ohio Rev. Code § 1349.09(B)(1) (the “Act”), which was approved in July 2023 and was set to go into effect on January 15,2024. Under the Act, parents must provide consent for children under 16 to set up an account on social media and online gaming platforms. The platform operators must also provide parents with a list of content moderation features.

On July 5, 2023, Ohio Governor, Mike DeWine, signed into law House Bill 33, which includes the Social Media Parental Notification Act (“Act”).

On June 18, 2020, Senator Sherrod Brown (OH) released a discussion draft of a privacy bill entitled the Data Accountability and Transparency Act of 2020 (“the Bill”). The Bill would provide individuals with several new rights regarding their personal data; implement rules limiting how personal data is collected, used or shared; and establish a new federal agency called the Data Accountability and Transparency Agency to protect individuals’ privacy and enforce those rules.

Effective November 2, 2018, a new Ohio breach law will provide covered entities a legal safe harbor for certain data breach-related claims brought in an Ohio court or under Ohio law if, at the time of the breach, the entity maintains and complies with a cybersecurity program that (1) contains administrative, technical and physical safeguards for the protection of personal information, and (2) reasonably conforms to one of the “industry-recognized” cybersecurity frameworks enumerated in the law.

On November 12, 2013, two companies (the “Defendants”) that provide consumer background reports to third parties, including criminal record checks agreed to an $18.6 million settlement stemming from allegations that they violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) when providing these reports to prospective employers.

On August 23, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held in Retailer Ventures, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. that losses resulting from the theft of customers’ banking information from a retailer’s computer system are covered under a commercial crime policy’s computer fraud endorsement.

Rejecting a defense based on compliance with the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), a federal court in Ohio denied a medical clinic’s motion to dismiss invasion of privacy claims following the clinic’s disclosure of medical records to a grand jury.  In Turk v. Oiler, No. 09-CV-381 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 1, 2010), plaintiff Turk had been under investigation for illegally carrying a concealed weapon and for having a weapon while under disability in violation of an Ohio law which provides that “no person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any firearm” if “[t]he person is drug dependent, in danger of drug dependence, or a chronic alcoholic.”  Defendant Cleveland Clinic, where Turk was a patient, received a grand jury subpoena requesting “medical records to include but not be limited to drug and alcohol counseling and mental issues regarding James G. Turk.”  When the Cleveland Clinic disclosed Turk’s medical records in response to this subpoena, Turk sued the clinic for violating his privacy rights.