Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On May 23, the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Data, Innovation, and Commerce approved a revised draft of the American Privacy Rights Act (“APRA”), which includes significant changes from the initial discussion draft.

On May 1, 2024, Utah’s Artificial Intelligence Policy Act entered into effect.

On May 17, 2024, Colorado became the first U.S. state to enact comprehensive artificial intelligence legislation. This blog entry provides highlights of the key requirements.

On March 29, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced its decision to deny, without prejudice, an application for approval of a “Privacy-Protective Facial Age Estimation” mechanism for obtaining parental consent under COPPA.

On February 26, 2024, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) announced the release of Version 2.0 of its voluntary Cybersecurity Framework (“CSF”).

The first iteration of the CSF was released in 2014 as a result of an Executive Order, to help organizations understand, manage, and reduce their cybersecurity risks. The original CSF was developed for organizations in the critical infrastructure sector, such as hospitals and power plants, but has since been voluntarily implemented across various sectors and industries, including throughout schools and local governments.

On February 16, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) published a final version of Special Publication 800-66 Revision 2, “Implementing the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) Security Rule: A Cybersecurity Resource Guide.” The publication features guidance and recommendations for cybersecurity measures for HIPAA covered entities to consider in the development of their information security programs, a ...

On October 30, 2023, U.S. President Biden issued an Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. It marks the Biden Administration’s most comprehensive action on artificial intelligence policy, building upon the Administration’s Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights (issued in October 2022) and its announcement (in July 2023) of securing voluntary commitments from 15 leading AI companies to manage AI risks.

On May 10, 2023, the Texas Senate passed H.B. 4, also known as the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act (“TDPSA”). The TDPSA now heads to a conference committee between the Texas Senate and House to rectify the differences between the Senate and House versions. If the TDPSA is signed into law, Texas could become the tenth state to enact comprehensive privacy legislation.

On April 21, 2023, the Tennessee legislature voted to enact the Tennessee Information Privacy Act (H.B. 1181)(“TIPA”). TIPA includes a requirement for controllers and processors to create, maintain and comply with a written privacy program that reasonably conforms to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) privacy framework. Under TIPA, the scale and scope of a controller or processor’s privacy program is appropriate if it is based on specific factors enumerated in the law. These include (1) the size and complexity of the controller or processor’s business; (2) the nature and scope of the activities of the controller or processor; (3) the sensitivity of the personal information processed; (4) the cost and availability of tools to improve privacy protections and data governance; and (5) compliance with a comparable state or federal law.

On April 21, 2023, the Montana and Tennessee legislatures voted to enact comprehensive consumer privacy bills in their respective states. If signed by their governors, Montana’s Consumer Data Privacy Act (S.B. 384) (“MCDPA”) and Tennessee’s Information Protection Act (H.B. 1181) (“TIPA”) could make these states the eighth and ninth U.S. states to enact comprehensive privacy legislation.

On January 26, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) released the Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (“AI RMF 1.0”), which provides a set of guidelines for organizations that design, develop, deploy or use AI to manage its many risks and promote trustworthy and responsible use and development of AI systems.

On September 9, 2022, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced its publication of final Cybersecurity Best Practices for the Safety of Modern Vehicles (the “2022 Best Practices”). The 2022 Best Practices reflect the agency’s final, non-binding vehicle cybersecurity guidance following its release of draft guidance in January 2021. The 2022 Best Practices also is an update to NHTSA’s first cybersecurity best practices document, which was issued in 2016. 

On September 6, 2022, the California legislature presented Assembly Bill 2392 to Governor Gavin Newsom. AB-2392, which has not yet been signed by Governor Newsom, would allow Internet-connected device manufacturers to satisfy existing device labeling requirements by complying with National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) standards for consumer Internet of Things (“IoT”) products.

On July 21, 2022, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) released an updated draft of its HIPAA Security Rule guidance. The draft guidance, titled “Implementing the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule: A Cybersecurity Resource Guide” (NIST Special Publication 800-66, Revision 2), is designed to assist HIPAA regulated entities “maintain the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic protected health information (ePHI).” NIST issued the updated draft guidance to align it with other NIST cybersecurity guidance documents that have been published since the original HIPAA Security Rule guidance was issued in 2008.

On September 22, 2021, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas and Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo released a joint statement on the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS’s”) issuance of preliminary Critical Infrastructure Control Systems Cybersecurity Performance Goals and Objectives (the “Preliminary Goals”). As we previously reported, on July 28, 2021, the Biden Administration signed a National Security Memorandum on Improving Cybersecurity for Critical Infrastructure Control Systems (the “Memo”), which instructed DHS to lead the development of cybersecurity performance goals for critical infrastructure firms. The Memo described the initiative as “a voluntary, collaborative effort between the Federal Government and the critical infrastructure community to significantly improve the cybersecurity of these critical systems.”

On October 1, 2021, Connecticut’s two new data security laws become effective. As we previously reported, the new laws modify Connecticut’s existing breach notification requirements and establish a safe harbor from certain Connecticut Superior Court assessed damages for businesses that create and maintain a written cybersecurity program.

On September 14 and 15, 2021, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) held a public workshop, as part of its effort to create a consumer labeling program to communicate the security capabilities of consumer Internet of Things (“IoT”) devices and software development practices, as mandated by the Biden administration’s May 2021 Executive Order on Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity. NIST, in coordination with the Federal Trade Commission  and other agencies, must identify the criteria and components of such a labeling program by February 6, 2022.

Connecticut recently passed two cybersecurity laws that will become effective on October 1, 2021. The newly passed laws modify Connecticut’s existing breach notification requirements and establish a safe harbor for businesses that create and maintain a written cybersecurity program that complies with applicable state or federal law or industry-recognized security frameworks.

On July 28, 2021, President Biden signed a National Security Memorandum entitled “Improving Cybersecurity for Critical Infrastructure Control Systems” (the “Memorandum”). The Memorandum formally establishes an Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity Initiative and directs the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”) and the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), in collaboration with other agencies, to develop and issue cybersecurity performance goals for critical infrastructure. The Memorandum follows recent high-profile attacks on U.S. critical infrastructure, including ransomware attacks on Colonial Pipeline and JBS Foods.

On August 18, 2020, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) published a draft report, Four Principles of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (Draft NISTIR 8312 or the “Draft Report”), which sets forth four proposed principles regarding the “explainability” of decisions made by Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) systems.

On March 19, 2020, the Irish Data Protection Authority (the “DPC”) published guidance to assist organizations in understanding their data security obligations and to mitigate their risks of a personal data breach when using cloud-based services (the “Guidance”).

On September 6, 2019, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) released a preliminary draft of its Privacy Framework: A Tool for Improving Privacy Through Enterprise Risk Management (“Privacy Framework”).

On June 19, 2019, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) issued its draft SP 800-171B guidelines (the “draft”), which outlines enhanced measures to protect controlled unclassified information (“CUI”) held by government contractors.

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology recently announced that it is seeking public comment on Draft NISTIR 8228, Considerations for Managing Internet of Things (“IoT”) Cybersecurity and Privacy Risks (the “Draft Report”). The document is to be the first in a planned series of publications that will examine specific aspects of the IoT topic.

On September 4, 2018, the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) announced a collaborative project to develop a voluntary privacy framework to help organizations manage privacy risk. The announcement states that the effort is motivated by innovative new technologies, such as the Internet of Things and artificial intelligence, as well as the increasing complexity of network environments and detail of user data, which make protecting individuals’ privacy more difficult. “We’ve had great success with broad adoption of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, and we see this as providing complementary guidance for managing privacy risk,” said Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and NIST Director Walter G. Copan.

Recently, the General Services Administration (“GSA”) announced its plan to upgrade its cybersecurity requirements in an effort to build upon the Department of Defense’s new cybersecurity requirements, DFAR Section 252.204-7012, that became effective on December 31, 2017.

On January 10, 2017, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) released proposed updates to the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (the “Cybersecurity Framework”). The proposed updates, which are found in Version 1.1 of the Cybersecurity Framework, are derived from feedback received by NIST regarding the first version, including from responses to a December 2015 request for information and discussions at a workshop held in April 2016.

On January 4, 2017, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) announced the final release of NISTIR 8062, An Introduction to Privacy Engineering and Risk Management in Federal Systems. NISTIR 8062 describes the concept of applying systems engineering practices to privacy and sets forth a model for conducting privacy risk assessments on federal systems. According to the NIST, NISTIR 8062 “hardens the way we treat privacy, moving us one step closer to making privacy more science than art.”

On November 14, 2016, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) published guidance on cybersecurity for internet-connected devices, Systems Security Engineering: Considerations for A Multidisciplinary Approach in the Engineering of Trustworthy Secure Systems (the “Guidance”). Citing “the continuing frequency, intensity, and adverse consequences of cyber-attacks,” the Guidance “addresses the engineering-driven perspective and actions necessary to develop more defensible and survivable systems.”

The National Highway Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) recently issued non-binding guidance that outlines best practices for automobile manufacturers to address automobile cybersecurity. The guidance, entitled Cybersecurity Best Practices for Modern Vehicles (the “Cybersecurity Guidance”), was recently previewed in correspondence with the House of Representatives' Committee on Energy and Commerce (“Energy and Commerce Committee”).

On October 14, 2016, the National Highway Transportation Administration (“NHTSA”) indicated in a letter to Congress that it intends to issue new best practices on vehicle cybersecurity. This letter came in response to an earlier request from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (“Energy and Commerce Committee”) that NHTSA convene an industry-wide effort to develop a plan to address vulnerabilities posed to vehicles by On-Board Diagnostics (“OBD-II”) ports. Since 1994, the Environmental Protection Agency has required OBD-II ports be installed in all vehicles so that they can be tested for compliance with the Clean Air Act. OBD-II ports provide valuable vehicle diagnostic information and allow for aftermarket devices providing services such as “good driver” insurance benefits and vehicle tracking. Because OBD-II ports provide direct access to a vehicle’s internal network; however, OBD-II ports are widely cited as the central vulnerability to vehicle cybersecurity.

A recent study from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) warns that an overabundance of computer security measures might actually lead users to engage in “risky computing behavior at work and in their personal lives.”

Recently, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) published two guidance documents related to HIPAA compliance. To help mobile app developers understand HIPAA compliance obligations, OCR published guidance on the use of mobile health apps (the “Health App Guidance”). OCR also released a crosswalk (the “Crosswalk”) that maps the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity Framework (the “NIST Cybersecurity Framework”) to the HIPAA Security Rule.

On January 5, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission announced that dental office management software provider, Henry Schein Practice Solutions, Inc. (“Schein”), agreed to settle FTC charges that accused the company of falsely advertising the level of encryption it used to protect patient data. The proposed Agreement Containing Consent Order (“Consent Order”) stems from an FTC complaint that alleged the company engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices by falsely representing that the Dentrix G5 software used industry-standard encryption and helped dentists protect patient data in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”).

On December 30, 2015, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) issued a second interim rule (80 F. R. 81472) that extends the deadline by which federal contractors must implement the new cybersecurity requirements previously issued by the agency.  This extension pushes back the compliance deadline to December 31, 2017.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) recently released the final draft of its report entitled De-Identification of Personal Information. The report stems from a review conducted by NIST of various de-identification techniques for removal of personal information from computerized documents. While de-identification techniques are widely used, there is concern that existing techniques are insufficient to protect personal privacy because certain remaining information can make it possible to re-identify individuals.

On August 26, 2015, the U.S. Department of Defense (“DoD”) published an interim rule entitled Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Network Penetration Reporting and Contracting for Cloud Services (DFARS Case 2013–D018) (the “Interim Rule”), that streamlines the obligations for contractors to report network penetrations and establishes DoD requirements for contracting with cloud computing service providers. The Interim Rule amends the information security contracting framework set forth in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) to implement section 941 of the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2013 and section 1632 of the NDAA for FY 2015, both of which impose cyber incident reporting obligations on contractors.

On July 16, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) issued a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NOPR”) addressing the critical infrastructure protection (“CIP”) reliability standards. The NOPR proposes to accept with limited modifications seven updated CIP cybersecurity standards. The NOPR also proposes that new requirements be added to the CIP standards to protect supply chain vendors against evolving malware threats and addresses risks to utility communications networks.

On June 2, 2015, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) issued a press release on its recently published draft report, entitled Privacy Risk Management Framework for Federal Information Systems (the “Report”). The Report describes a privacy risk management framework (“PRMF”) for federal information systems designed to promote “a greater understanding of privacy impacts and the capability to address them in federal information systems through risk management.” The draft PRMF includes a Privacy Risk Assessment Methodology (“PRAM”) consisting of several worksheets for assessing the privacy impact of data actions.

On April 8, 2015, a New York Assemblyman introduced the Data Security Act in the New York State Assembly that would require New York businesses to implement and maintain information security safeguards. The requirements would apply to “private information,” which is defined as either:

• personal information consisting of any information in combination with one or more of the following data elements, when either the personal information or the data element is not encrypted: Social Security number; driver’s license number or non-driver identification card number; financial account or credit or debit card number in combination with any required security code or password; or biometric information;
• a user name or email address in combination with a password or security question and answer that would permit access to an online account; or
• unsecured protected health information (as that term is defined in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Privacy Rule).

On April 13, 2015, the Senate of Washington State unanimously passed legislation strengthening the state’s data breach law. The bill (HB 1078) passed the Senate by a 47-0 vote, and as we previously reported, passed the House by a 97-0 vote.

On March 4, 2015, the House of Representatives of Washington passed a bill (HB 1078), which would amend the state’s breach notification law to require notification to the state Attorney General in the event of a breach and impose a 45-day timing requirement for notification provided to affected residents and the state regulator. The bill also mandates content requirements for notices to affected residents, including (1) the name and contact information of the reporting business; (2) a list of the types of personal information subject to the breach; and (3) the toll-free telephone numbers and address of the consumer reporting agencies. In addition, while Washington’s breach notification law currently applies only to “computerized” data, the amended law would cover hard-copy data as well.

On December 5, 2014, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) released an update on the implementation of the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (“Framework”). NIST issued the Framework earlier this year in February 2014 at the direction of President Obama’s February 2013 Critical Infrastructure Executive Order. The update is based on feedback NIST received in October at the 6th Cybersecurity Framework Workshop as well as from responses to an August Request for Information.

On November 18, 2014, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams (the “Centre”) held the second workshop in its ongoing work on the risk-based approach to privacy and a Privacy Risk Framework. Approximately 70 Centre members, privacy regulators and other privacy experts met in Brussels to discuss the benefits and challenges of the risk-based approach, operationalizing risk assessments within organizations, and employing risk analysis in enforcement. In discussing these issues, the speakers emphasized that the risk-based approach does not change the obligation to comply with privacy laws but helps with the effective calibration of privacy compliance programs.

On September 15-16, 2014, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) will sponsor a workshop to further its Privacy Engineering initiative. The workshop will focus on developing draft privacy engineering definitions and concepts that will be explored in a forthcoming NIST report.

On March 28, 2014, the Department of Health and Human Services’ (“HHS’”) Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) released a tool to assist covered entities in complying with the HIPAA Security Rule requirement to conduct a risk assessment. The HIPAA Security Rule obligates covered entities to accurately and thoroughly assess “the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic protected health information” (“PHI”) they maintain. The tool, which is aimed at small to medium health care providers, was developed jointly by OCR and the HHS Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”), and follows the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s development of a similar toolkit.

On March 18, 2014, Hunton & Williams’ Global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice group hosted the latest webcast in its Hunton Global Privacy Update series. The program focused on some of the recent developments in privacy, including observations from the International Association of Privacy Professionals’ Global Privacy Summit in Washington, D.C., earlier this month, the National Institute of Standards and Technology final Cybersecurity Framework and the Article 29 Working Party’s recent Opinion on Binding Corporate Rules and Cross-Border Privacy Rules.

On February 12, 2014, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) issued the final Cybersecurity Framework, as required under Section 7 of the Obama Administration’s February 2013 executive order, Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (the “Executive Order”). The Framework, which includes standards, procedures and processes for reducing cyber risks to critical infrastructure, reflects changes based on input received during a widely-attended public workshop held last November in North Carolina and comments submitted with respect to a preliminary version of the Framework that was issued in October 2013.

On January 21, 2014, Hunton & Williams’ Global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice group hosted the latest webcast in its Hunton Global Privacy Update series. The program highlighted some of the key privacy developments that companies will encounter in 2014, including cybersecurity issues in the U.S., California’s Do Not Track legislation, Safe Harbor, the EU General Data Protection Regulation and the CNIL’s new cookie guidance.

On December 12, 2013, Fred H. Cate, Senior Policy Advisor in the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams LLP (the “Centre”), submitted comments in response to the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (“NIST’s”) Preliminary Cybersecurity Framework (the “Preliminary Framework”). On October 22, NIST issued the Preliminary Framework, as required by the Obama Administration’s February 2013 executive order, Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (“Executive Order”), and solicited comments on the Framework. The Preliminary Framework includes standards, methodologies, procedures and processes that align policy, business and technological approaches to address cyber risks.

On October 22, 2013, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) issued the Preliminary Cybersecurity Framework (the “Preliminary Framework”), as required under Section 7 of the Obama Administration’s February 2013 executive order, Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (the “Executive Order”). The Preliminary Framework includes standards, procedures and processes for reducing cyber risks to critical infrastructure. It will be published in the Federal Register within a few days for public comment. Under the Executive Order, NIST is required to issue a final version of the Framework in February 2014. NIST is planning to host a public workshop on the Preliminary Framework in mid-November to give industry and other groups an opportunity to provide their views on this document.

On August 6, 2013, the Obama Administration posted links on The White House Blog to reports from the Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security and Treasury containing recommendations on incentivizing companies to align their cybersecurity practices with the Cybersecurity Framework. These reports respond to the Administration’s February 2013 executive order entitled Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (the “Executive Order”).

On July 1, 2013, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) issued a preliminary draft outline of the Cybersecurity Framework that is being developed pursuant to the Obama Administration’s February 2013 executive order, Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (the “Executive Order”).

On March 28, 2013, the Department of Commerce’s Notice of Inquiry into “Incentives to Adopt Improved Cybersecurity Practices” was published in the Federal Register (78 Fed. Reg. 18954). This Notice, which includes a series of broad questions for owners of the nation’s critical infrastructure, follows up on earlier Commerce inquiries focused on incentives for noncritical infrastructure. The Notice states that Commerce will use the responses it receives to evaluate a set of incentives designed to encourage owners of critical infrastructure to participate in a voluntary cybersecurity program. The Notice also indicates that Commerce will use the responses to inform its evaluation of whether the incentives would require legislation or could be implemented pursuant to existing law and authorities. In addition, the Notice provides that Commerce may use the responses to develop a broader set of recommendations that would apply to U.S. industry as a whole.

On February 26, 2013, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) issued a Request for Information (“RFI”) to gather comments regarding the development of a framework to reduce cybersecurity risks to critical infrastructure. As we previously reported, the Obama Administration’s executive order, Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (the “Executive Order”), released on February 12, 2013, directs NIST to coordinate development of this framework. Under the Executive Order, NIST is charged with collaborating with industry partners and identifying existing international standards and practices that have proven effective.

On June 7, 2012, at the annual Safeguarding Health Information: Building Assurance through HIPAA Security Conference hosted in Washington, D.C. by the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), OCR Director Leon Rodriguez said that, given HIPAA’s 15-year history and the substantial technical assistance OCR and NIST have provided covered entities, tolerance for HIPAA non-compliance is “much, much lower” than it has been in the past.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) has issued draft Guidelines on Security and Privacy in Public Cloud Computing (SP 800-144) (the “Guidelines”) for public comment. The Guidelines provide an overview of the security and privacy challenges pertinent to public cloud computing, and identify considerations for organizations outsourcing data, applications and infrastructure to a public cloud environment. The Guidelines are intended for use by federal agencies. Use in nongovernmental settings is voluntary.

The United States Congress is currently considering several bills addressing cybersecurity issues.  Below are brief summaries of four such bills.

The Grid Reliability and Infrastructure Defense (“GRID”) Act

The GRID Act was passed by the House of Representatives on June 9, 2010. This bill would amend the Federal Power Act to grant the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) authority to issue emergency orders requiring critical infrastructure facility operators to take actions necessary to protect the bulk power system. Prior to FERC issuing such an order, the President would have to issue a written directive to FERC identifying an imminent threat to the nation’s electric grid.  FERC would be required to consult with federal agencies or facility operators before issuing an emergency order only “to the extent practicable” in light of the nature of the threat. The GRID Act is being considered by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources at this time.

The Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) within the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) has announced that it will more closely examine covered entities’ breach notification and risk mitigation plans.  OCR noted that small and medium sized covered entities have been particularly vulnerable to data breaches.  The National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) will publish a guide for covered entities that “outlines the steps to mitigate risks for data breaches, training for how to respond to breaches, and overall preparation in the event of a ...

On January 1, 2010, two important state data security and privacy laws took effect in Nevada and New Hampshire.  The laws create new obligations for most companies that do business in Nevada and for health care providers and business associates in New Hampshire.