STORAGE NAME: h1183.ITP
DATE: 3/22/2025
1
FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BILL ANALYSIS
This bill analysis was prepared by nonpartisan committee staff and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.
BILL #: HB 1183
TITLE: Cybersecurity Incident Liability
SPONSOR(S): Giallombardo
COMPANION BILL: SB 1576 (DiCeglie)
LINKED BILLS: None
RELATED BILLS: None
Committee References
Information Technology Budget &
Policy
Civil Justice & Claims
State Affairs
SUMMARY
Effect of the Bill:
The bill provides liability protection for local governments (i.e., counties and municipalities) and private entities in
connection with cybersecurity incidents. Local governments are shielded from liability from all lawsuits related to a
cybersecurity incident if they adopt recognized cybersecurity standards or frameworks, maintain disaster recovery
plans, and use multi-factor authentication. They may also be shielded by participating in the Local Government
Cybersecurity Grant Program and sharing telemetry data with the state’s Cybersecurity Operations Center.
The bill shields business entities and third-party agents from liability in class action lawsuits related to
cybersecurity incidents if they comply with Florida’s data breach notification laws, adopt recognized cybersecurity
standards or frameworks, maintain disaster recovery plans, and use multi-factor authentication. Additionally,
entities regulated under federal or state law may qualify by demonstrating substantial compliance with applicable
cybersecurity requirements.
Fiscal or Economic Impact:
The bill may have a positive fiscal impact on the state, local governments, and the private sector by reducing
liability for local governments and limiting class action liability for private entities in connection with cybersecurity
incidents, thereby lowering legal expenses and financial liabilities. Additionally, the state court system may
experience reduced strain on resources due to a decrease in litigation. However, the overall fiscal impact remains
indeterminate, as potential saving depend on the number of lawsuits that would have otherwise been filed and
whether affected individuals choose to pursue individual claims instead of class actions.
JUMP TO SUMMARY ANALYSIS RELEVANT INFORMATION BILL HISTORY
ANALYSIS
EFFECT OF THE BILL:
The bill provides liability protections—in connection with a cybersecurity incident—for local governments (i.e.,
counties and municipalities) that implement policies that substantially align with specified cybersecurity
standards or frameworks (or similar standards or frameworks), maintain disaster recovery plans, and use multi-
factor authentication (MFA) as required by their chosen framework. Additionally, local governments that apply for
the Local Government Cybersecurity Grant Program and share telemetry data with the state’s Cybersecurity
Operations Center (COC) also qualify for liability protection. (Section 1)
For business entities and third-party agents
1 that acquire, maintain, store, process, or use personal information, the
bill provides protections from class action lawsuits—in connection with a cybersecurity incident—if they
substantially comply with Florida’s data breach notification laws, implement policies that substantially align with
1
A “third-party agent” is an entity contracted to maintain, store, or process personal information on behalf of a “covered
entity”, which is a business entity. JUMP TO SUMMARY ANALYSIS RELEVANT INFORMATION BILL HISTORY
2
specified cybersecurity standards and frameworks (or similar standards or frameworks), maintain disaster
recovery plans, and use MFA as required by their chosen framework. If a covered entity or third-party agent is
regulated by federal or state data protection or security laws, substantial compliance with those laws is considered
sufficient to qualify for liability protections. (Section 1)
To demonstrate compliance, covered entities and third-party agents may provide documentation or other evidence
of assessments—conducted internally or by a third-party—verifying that their cybersecurity program aligns with
an industry framework or applicable regulatory standard. The bill also requires organizations to update their
cybersecurity programs within one year of any revisions to relevant frameworks or laws in order to retain liability
protection. (Section 1)
The bill does not create a private cause of action. Additionally, failure to implement a compliant cybersecurity
program does not constitute negligence per se and cannot be used as evidence of negligence or fault under any
other theory of liability against a business entity, third-party agent, local government, or other political
subdivision. If a local government, covered entity, or third-party agent is sued in connection with a cybersecurity
incident, the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish substantial compliance with the cybersecurity
requirements outlined in the bill. (Section 1)
The bill applies to any putative class action lawsuit filed on or after the bill’s effective date. (Section 2)
The effective date of the bill is upon becoming a law. (Section 3)
FISCAL OR ECONOMIC IMPACT:
STATE GOVERNMENT:
The bill may result in a positive fiscal impact on the state by limiting class action lawsuits related to cybersecurity
incidents. However, if a significant number of potential class members choose to file individual lawsuits instead,
the expected cost savings may be reduced or negated. Additionally, shielding local governments from liability may
decrease the number of lawsuits filed against them, potentially reducing the caseload for state courts. The overall
fiscal impact on the state court system is indeterminate at this time, as it depends on how affect individuals
respond to the bill’s limitations on class actions and how many cases would have been brought against local
governments absent the bill’s protections.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT:
The bill may have a positive fiscal impact on local governments by reducing legal expenses and financial liabilities
related to cybersecurity incidents due to the liability shield. The fiscal impact is indeterminate at this time, as it
depends on the number of cybersecurity incidents for which local governments would have otherwise been liable
but for the protections under the bill.
PRIVATE SECTOR:
The bill may have a positive fiscal impact on private businesses. By limiting class action lawsuits against businesses
and third-party agents that handle personal information in connection with a cybersecurity incident, the bill may
reduce legal expenses and financial liabilities. However, businesses and third-party agents seeking liability
protections must comply with Florida’s data breach notification laws and implement industry cybersecurity
frameworks and best practices, which could require additional cybersecurity investment depending on their
current security posture. The overall fiscal impact is indeterminate at this time, as the extent of cost savings from
reduced litigation will vary based on the number of lawsuits that would have otherwise been filed and the legal
expenses and liabilities businesses and third-party agents would have incurred.
Additionally, the bill may have an indeterminate positive fiscal impact on private individuals by incentivizing
businesses, third-party agents, and local governments to adopt certain cybersecurity measures. These actions
could help protect data (e.g., taxpayer and consumer personal information), information technology (IT), and IT
resources from unauthorized access. If these entities enhance their cybersecurity posture, it may reduce the
frequency and impact of cyberattacks on private individuals in the state. JUMP TO SUMMARY ANALYSIS RELEVANT INFORMATION BILL HISTORY
3
RELEVANT INFORMATION
SUBJECT OVERVIEW:
Legislative Authority Over Causes of Action
The Florida Constitution guarantees the right to access to the courts, ensuring that they “shall be open to every
person for redress of any injury.”
2 However, this right is not absolute. In Kluger v. White,
3 the Florida Supreme
Court ruled that while the Legislature has the power to modify or restrict legal causes of action, it cannot eliminate
a “traditional and long-standing” cause of action arbitrarily or on a mere legislative whim. The Court outlined
specific conditions under which the Legislature may lawfully limit or abolish a cause of action. First, it may reduce
a cause of action so long as it does not completely eliminate the right to sue.
4 Second, it may abolish a cause of
action that is neither historically rooted in common law nor established by statute before the adoption of the
Florida Constitution’s Declaration of Rights.
5 Lastly, the Legislature may abolish a cause of action if it provides a
reasonable alternative remedy
6 or demonstrates an “overpowering public necessity” that cannot be addressed
through any other means.
7 This framework ensures that legislative action altering legal remedies remains
consistent with constitutional protects while allowing for necessary policy changes.
Tort Liability
A tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. Tort law is designed to fairly compensate individuals
who have been harmed by another’s wrongful actions—whether intentional, reckless, or negligent—through civil
legal process. An effective tort system serves several key functions:
Ensures a fair and equitable forum for resolving disputes.
Compensates individuals who have suffered legitimate harm.
Allocates financial responsibility to those at fault.
Encourages responsible behavior to prevent future harm.
Deters wrongful conduct by imposing legal consequences.
8
Negligence in Tort Law
Negligence is a legal concept in tort law that applies to actions that cause harm unintentionally. In a negligence
lawsuit, the plaintiff is the party bringing the claim, while the defendant is the party accused of causing harm. To
prevail in a negligence claim, the plaintiff must establish the following elements:
Duty of Care: The defendant had a legal obligation to adhere to a specific standard of conduct to protect
others, including the plaintiff, from unreasonable risks.
Breach of Duty: The defendant failed to meet the required standard of care.
9
Causation: The defendant’s breach caused the plaintiff’s injury.
2
Art. I, s. 21, FLA. CONST.
3
Kluger v. White, 281 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1973).
4
See Achord v. Osceola Farms Co., 52 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 2010).
5
See Anderson v. Gannett Comp., 994 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 2008) (false light was not actionable under the common law); McPhail v.
Jenkins, 382 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 1980) (wrongful death was not actionable under the common law); see also Kluger, 281 So. 2d at
4 ("We hold, therefore, that where a right of access to the courts for redress for a particular injury has been provided by
statutory law predating the adoption of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of the State of Florida, or where such right
has become a part of the common law of the State . . . the Legislature is without power to abolish such a right without
providing a reasonable alternative . . . unless the Legislature can show an overpowering public necessity . . . .").
6
Kluger, 281 So. 2d at 4; see Univ. of Miami v. Echarte, 618 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1993) (upholding a statutory cap on medical
malpractice damages because the Legislature provided arbitration, which is a "commensurate benefit" for a claimant); accord
Lasky v. State Farm Ins. Co., 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974); Smith v. Dept. of Ins., 507 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1992) (striking down a
noneconomic cap on damages, which, while not wholly abolishing a cause of action, did not provide a commensurate benefit).
7
Kluger, 281 So. 2d at 4-5 (noting that in 1945, the Legislature abolished the right to sue for several causes of action, but
successfully demonstrated "the public necessity required for the total abolition of a right to sue."); see Echarte, 618 So. 2d at
195 ("Even if the medical malpractice arbitration statutes at issue did not provide a commensurate benefit, we would find that
the statutes satisfy the second prong of Kluger which requires a legislative finding that an 'overpowering public necessity'
exists, and further that 'no alternative method of meeting such public necessity can be shown.'").
8
See 74 Am. Jur. 2d Torts § 2.
9
However, in a negligence per se case, the plaintiff does not need to prove breach of duty, as it is established as a matter of
law. Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed.), negligence. JUMP TO SUMMARY ANALYSIS RELEVANT INFORMATION BILL HISTORY
4
Damages: The plaintiff suffered actual harm, such as physical injury, financial loss, or other measurable
damages.
10
Courts recognize different levels of negligence, which can impact liability and potential damages:
Slight Negligence: A minor failure to exercise great care, often applied to common carriers (e.g., public
transportation providers) that have a heightened duty to ensure passenger safety.
11
Ordinary Negligence: The failure to exercise reasonable care that a prudent person would use under similar
circumstances, resulting in foreseeable harm.
12
Gross Negligence: A reckless disregard for the safety of others, demonstrating a conscious indifference to
known risks. Unlike ordinary negligence, gross negligence often requires proof that the defendant was
aware of imminent danger yet failed to act. A finding of gross negligence may justify an award of punitive
damages,
13 which are meant to punish and deter particularly egregious conduct.
14
Comparative Negligence and Pleading Standards in Florida
In Florida, negligence cases follow a modified comparative negligence rule, which means that a plaintiff can only
recover damages if they are 50 percent or less at fault for their own harm.
15 Plaintiffs found to be more than 50
percent responsible, are barred from recovering any damages. When awarding damages, the jury assigns a
percentage of fault to each party, and any compensation awarded is reduced accordingly.
Florida follows the fact-pleading standard, which requires plaintiffs in civil cases to file a complaint that includes:
A short and plain statement of the court’s jurisdiction, unless jurisdiction is already established.
A concise statement of the ultimate facts
16 supporting the claim.
A demand for relief, specifying what the plaintiff seeks (e.g., monetary damages, injunctions, etc.).
17
Certain claims must be pleaded with particularity, meaning the complaint must include detailed factual allegations
sufficient to establish each element of the claim. This heightened standard applies to allegations such as fraud,
mistake, or conditions of the mind, requiring more than general assertions.
18
Burden of Proof and Legal Presumptions
The burden of proof refers to the obligation to establish a material fact in a legal dispute.
19 Generally, the party
asserting a fact bears the burden.
20 In civil cases, the plaintiff must prove allegations in the complaint, while in
criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt. Conversely, a defendant raising an affirmative
10
See 21 Fla. Prac., Elements of an Action § 1401:1 (2024-2025 ed.); see also Barnett v. Dept. of Financial Services, 303 So.3d
508 (Fla. 2020).
11
Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024), negligence; see also Faircloth v. Hill, 85 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1956); Holland America
Cruises, Inc. v. Underwood, 470 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Werndli v. Greyhound Corp., 365 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
12
Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024), negligence; see also De Wald v. Quarnstrom, 60 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 1952); Clements v.
Deeb , 88 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1956).
13
Punitive damages are awarded in addition to actual damages to punish a defendant for behavior considered especially
harmful. Florida generally caps punitive damage awards at $500,000 or triple the value of compensatory damages, whichever
is greater, and caps cases of intentional misconduct with a financial motivation at two million dollars or four times the amount
of compensatory damages, whichever is greater. However, if the defendant intended to harm the claimant and actually caused
harm, punitive damages are not capped. S. 768.73(1), F.S.
14
Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024), negligence; s. 768.72(2)(b), F.S.; see also Clements, 88 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1956);
Carraway v. Revell, 116 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1959); Glaab v. Caudill, 236 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970).
15
S. 768.81(6), F.S. This comparative negligence rule does not apply to an action for damages for personal injury or wrongful
death arising out of medical negligence pursuant to ch. 766, F.S. Additionally, the comparative negligence standard does not
apply to any action brought to recover economic damages from pollution, to any action based on an intentional tort, or to any
action as to which application of the doctrine of joint and several liability is specifically provided by ch. 403, 517, 542, and 895,
F.S. See s. 768.81(4), F.S.
16
An ultimate fact is a fact that is essential to the claim or defense. Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed.), fact.
17
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110; see also Goldschmidt v. Holman, 571 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1990).
18
This heightened standard also applies to claims involving denial of performance or occurrence. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.120(b) and
(c).
19
Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024), burden of proof.
20
See Berg v. Bridle Path Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 809 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). JUMP TO SUMMARY ANALYSIS RELEVANT INFORMATION BILL HISTORY
5
defense—whether in a civil or criminal case—must prove the elements of that defense.
21 In some instances,
statutory or common law presumptions shift the burden of proof to the opposing party and generally remain in
effect unless sufficiently rebutted.
22
Sovereign Immunity
Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that prevents the government from being sued without its consent.
23 The
Florida Constitution allows the Legislature to waive this immunity,
24 and Florida Statutes permit tort claims
against the state, its agencies, and subdivisions for damages caused by negligence of government employees acting
within the scope of their employment.
25 However, liability exists only when a private individual would be held
liable for the same conduct and applies specifically to injury or loss of property, personal injury, or death.
26
The law also limits tort recovery against a governmental entity to $200,000 per person and $300,000 per incident.
Although a court may enter a judgement exceeding these caps, a claimant generally cannot collect more than the
statutory limits unless the Legislature approves a claim bill
27 granting additional compensation.
28
Additionally, government employees, officers, and agents are generally immune from personal liability for actions
taken within the scope of employment, unless they act in bad faith, with malicious purpose, or with wanton and
willful disregard for human rights, safety, or property.
29 A government entity is not liable for actions taken by an
employee outside the scope of employment or for actions committed by an employee with bad faith, malicious
intent, or reckless disregard for others’ rights or safety.
30
Class Action Lawsuits
A class action lawsuit allows one or more plaintiffs to sue on behalf of a larger group, or “class,” that has suffered
similar harm. This procedural device enables courts to efficiently manage lawsuits that would be otherwise
unmanageable if each affected individual had to file separately. Class actions also help protect defendants from
inconsistent judgments and allow plaintiffs to share litigation costs.
31
A class action lawsuit is filed when a plaintiff submits a complaint seeking to represent a class of similarly affected
individuals. However, at this stage, the case is not yet a certified class action—it is considered a putative class
action until the court determines whether to grant class certification. For a class action to be certified, the court
must find that the case meets specific legal requirements, including:
Numerosity: The class is large enough to justify a class action.
Commonality: Class members share common legal or factual issues.
Typicality: The lead plaintiff’s claims are representative of the class.
Adequacy: The lead plaintiff and attorneys can fairly and adequately represent the class.
32
If the court denies certification, the lawsuit continues only for the named plaintiffs and does not proceed as a class
action. If certified, the judgement or settlement in the case is binding on all class members, who are generally
prohibited from filing individual lawsuits raising the same claim. Notably, a class may include individuals harmed
21
An affirmative defense is a defendant’s assertion of facts that, if true, defeat the plaintiff’s or prosecution’s claim, even if the
allegations in the complaint are accurate. The defendant bears the burden of proving an affirmative defense, which may
include duress in civil cases or insanity and self-defense in criminal cases. Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024), defense.
22
See Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024), presumption; Cornell Law School, Presumption (last visited March 15, 2025).
23
Cornell Law School, Sovereign Immunity (last visited March 17, 2025).
24
Art. X, s. 13, FLA. CONST.
25
S. 768.28(1), F.S.
26
Id.
27
A “claim bill” is a bill that presents a claim to compensate a particular individual or entity for injuries or losses caused by the
negligence or error of a public officer or agency. The Florida Senate, Glossary (last visited March 17, 2025).
28
S. 768.28(5)(a), F.S.
29
S. 768.28(9)(a), F.S.
30
Id.
31
Cornell Law School, Class Action (last visited March 17, 2025).
32
See Fla. R. of Civ. Procedure 1.220; Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.; see also Sosa v. Safeway Premium Fin. Co., 73 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 2011). JUMP TO SUMMARY ANALYSIS RELEVANT INFORMATION BILL HISTORY
6
in the same manner as other class members without ever receiving direct notice of the action, making class
certification an important judicial safeguard.
33
Cybersecurity Standards or Frameworks
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S.
Department of Commerce.
34 The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014 expanded NIST’s role, directing it to
support the development of cybersecurity risk frameworks. Under this mandate, NIST created a prioritized,
flexible, and cost-effective framework to help critical infrastructure owners and operators identify, assess, and
manage cyber risks. This framework formalized NIST’s earlier work under Executive Order 13636 (2013),
“Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity,” and continues to guide future cybersecurity initiatives.
35
While originally designed for critical infrastructure the framework has since evolved into a widely used
cybersecurity resource across all sectors, including government, businesses, academia, and nonprofits. It is
designed to be flexible, scalable, and adaptable, making it useful for organizations regardless of size, industry, or
cybersecurity maturity level. Unlike prescriptive regulations, the framework provides broad, outcome-based
guidance, allowing organizations to tailor their cybersecurity strategies to their unique risks, resources, and
operational goals. It can be used as a standalone framework or integrated with existing cybersecurity programs.
Organizations may adopt it to assess current cybersecurity postures, identify gaps, and establish a roadmap for
continuous risk management. As such, there are a variety of ways to use the framework and the decision about
how to apply it is left to the implementing organization.
36
In addition to the NIST cybersecurity framework, several other cybersecurity standards, frameworks, and
compliance programs apply across industries and use cases:
NIST Special Publication 800-171: Establishes security requirements for protecting controlled unclassified
information. Defense contractors and manufacturers in government supply chains must comply with these
requirements.
37
NIST Special Publication 800-53 and 800-53A: Provides a comprehensive catalog of security and privacy
controls to help organizations manage cybersecurity risks across various environments, including cloud
and on-premises systems. These guidelines are primarily used by federal agencies and government
contractors to comply with federal security mandates but are also widely adopted by private sector
organizations for cybersecurity risk management.
38
Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP): A security assessment framework for
cloud services providers, ensuring compliance with federal cloud security guidelines.
39
Center for Internet Security Critical Security Controls: A prescriptive, prioritized set of best practices for
strengthening cybersecurity posture developed in 2008 to address significant network security issues.
40
International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission 27000-57 Series:
International cybersecurity standards, with ISO 27001 being the most prominent. This standard provides
33
See Cornell Law School, Class Action (last visited March 17, 2025).
34
See NIST, NIST History (last visited March 16, 2025).
35
See NIST, Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity Version 1.1 (last visited March 16, 2025).
36
See NIST, The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 (last visited March 16, 2025).
37
NIST, What is the NIST SP 800-171 and Who Needs to Follow It? (last visited March 17, 2025).
38
See NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5, Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations (last
visited March 17, 2025).
39
FedRAMP, Program Basics (last visited March 17, 2025).
40
See Center for Internet Security, CIS Critical Security Controls (last visited March 17, 2025); DOT Security, Explaining the
Critical Security Controls (CSC) by the Center for Internet Security (last visited March 17, 2025). JUMP TO SUMMARY ANALYSIS RELEVANT INFORMATION BILL HISTORY
7
a management framework for information security management systems, ensuring the confidentiality,
integrity, and availability of sensitive corporate data.
41
HITRUST Common Security Framework: A compliance framework primarily used in healthcare but
adaptable to other industries that consolidates multiple cybersecurity and privacy standards to help
organizations streamline their security programs.
42
Service Organization Control Type 2 Framework: Developed by the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants, this framework ensures that third-party service providers securely store and process client
data. Compliance is based on five trust service principles: security, privacy, availability, confidentially, and
processing integrity.
43
Secure Controls Framework: A meta-framework incorporating various cybersecurity and data privacy
controls to help organizations build secure and compliant programs.
44
Industry-Specific Cybersecurity Standards
Certain cybersecurity standards apply when handling specific types of sensitive information:
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (commonly known as HIPPA) Security Rule:
45 Protects
electronic protected health information and requires covered entities to ensure confidentiality, threat
detection, and compliance training. Mandatory for healthcare providers, insurers, and business associates
handling certain protected information.
46
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Title V, 1999):
47 Mandates financial institutions to protect consumer’s personal
financial data by following privacy regulations set by the Federal Trade Commission.
48
Federal Information Security Modernization Act (2014):
49 Requires federal agencies to report the status of
their information security programs and undergo annual independent security assessments.
50
Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act:
51 Strengthens HIPPA enforcement for
health data privacy and security, particularly regarding electronic transmissions.
52
Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Security Policy: Establishes minimum security standards for
criminal justice and non-criminal justice agencies that access the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s CJIS
Division systems to safeguard sensitive law enforcement data.
53
Multi-Factor Authentication
Multi-factor authentication (MFA) is a security measure that requires users to verify their identity using at least
two factors before accessing an account. These factors fall into three categories: something you know (e.g.,
passwords or PINs), something you have (e.g., security codes sent to a phone or authentication app), and
something you are (e.g., biometrics like fingerprints or facial recognition). MFA significantly reduces the risk of
unauthorized access, even if passwords are compromised. According to the industry experts, enabling MFA can
prevent 99% of automated hacking attacks.
54
Local Government Cybersecurity
Current law requires local governments (i.e., counties and municipalities) to implement, adopt, and comply with
cybersecurity training, standards, and incident notification protocols.
55 The Florida Digital Service (FLDS) is
41
IT Governance USA Inc., ISO 27001, the International Information Security Standard (last visited March 17, 2025).
42
Linford and Company, LLP, Understanding the HITRUST CSF: A Guide for Beginners (last visited March 17, 2025).
43
OneLogin, What is SOC 2 (last visited March 17, 2025).
44
See Secure Controls Framework, SCF Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) (last visited March 17, 2025).
45
45 C.F.R. §§ 160, 162, 164.
46
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HIPAA for Professionals (last visited March 17, 2025).
47
Pub. L. No. 106-102, as amended.
48
Federal Trade Commission, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (last visited March 17, 2025).
49
Pub. L. No. 113-283.
50
Chief Information Officers Council, Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) (last visited March 17, 2025).
51
Pub. L. No. 111-5.
52
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HITECH Act Enforcement Interim Final Rule (last visited March 17, 2025).
53
See Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Security Policy (last visited March 17, 2025).
54
See National Cybersecurity Alliance, What is Multifactor Authentication (MFA) And Why Should You Use It? (last visited March
17, 2025); see also NIST, Computer Security Resource Center Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) (last visited March 17, 2025).
55
S. 282.3185, F.S. JUMP TO SUMMARY ANALYSIS RELEVANT INFORMATION BILL HISTORY
8
responsible for developing cybersecurity training for local government employees. All employees with access to a
local government’s network must complete basic cybersecurity training within 30 days of employment and
annually thereafter. Additionally, technology professionals and employees handling highly sensitive information
must complete advanced cybersecurity training on the same schedule.
56
Local governments must also adopt cybersecurity standards that protect their data, information technology (IT),
and IT resources while ensuring availability, confidentiality, and integrity. These standards must align with
generally accepted best practices, including the NIST Cybersecurity Framework. Once adopted, local governments
must notify FLDS as soon as possible.
57
In the event of a cybersecurity or ransomware incident, local governments must adhere to specific notification
protocols. They are required to notify the Cybersecurity Operations Center (COC),
58 the Cybercrime Office of The
Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), and the local sheriff. At a minimum, the notification must include a
summary of the incident, the date and location of the most recent data backup—including whether it was affected
or stored in the cloud—the types of data compromised, the estimated financial impact, and, in the case of
ransomware, the ransom demand details. Additionally, the local government must indicate whether it is requesting
assistance from the COC, FDLE, or the sheriff.
59
Ransomware incidents, as well as cybersecurity incidents classified as severity level 3, 4, or 5, must be reported as
soon as possible, but no later than 48 hours after discovery for cybersecurity incidents and 12 hours after
discovery for ransomware incidents. The COC must then notify the President of the Senate and Speaker of the
House of Representatives within 12 hours of receiving the local government’s report, providing a high-level
description and the likely effects of the incident. Local governments may also report lower-severity cybersecurity
incidents at their discretion. The COC must also submit a consolidated incident report on a quarterly basis to the
President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Florida Cybersecurity Advisory Council
(CAC).
60 While the report to the CAC cannot include local government names, network details, or system identifiers,
it must contain sufficient information to support the Council’s responsibilities.
61
Following remediation, an after-action report summarizing the incident, resolution, and lessons learned must be
submitted to FLDS within one week. This report must include details such as the incident summary, incident
resolutions, and any insights gained as a result of the incident.
62
Local Government Cybersecurity Grant Program
The Local Government Cybersecurity Grant Program is a $40 million competitive grant program that provides
software, services, and cybersecurity solutions to local governments in Florida.
63 Eligible parties can apply for
funding to implement cybersecurity measures such as MFA, endpoint protection, threat monitoring, and
vulnerability assessments.
64
While participation in the grant program does not require local governments to share telemetry data with the
state’s COC, 96 percent of the first-year participates did so voluntarily. Telemetry data refers to automated
56
S. 282.3185(3), F.S.
57
S. 282.3185(4), F.S.
58
The COC, led by the state chief information security officer within FLDS, is a primarily virtual facility staffed with detection
and incident response personnel that serves as a clearinghouse for cybersecurity threat information and coordinates with law
enforcement. See s. 282.318(3)(h), F.S.
59
S. 282.3185(5)(b), F.S.
60
The CAC is an advisory body, housed with the Department of Management Services, tasked with assisting state and local
government agencies on addressing cybersecurity threats. The CAC provides guidance on best practices, reviews cybersecurity
policies, assesses risks, and makes legislative recommendations. It also collaborates with federal agencies and private-sector
experts to enhance cybersecurity measures and reports on ransomware trends. See s. 282.319, F.S.
61
S. 282.3185(5)(b), (c), (d), F.S.
62
S. 282.3185(6), F.S.
63
FLDS, Cybersecurity Grant Program (last visited March 16, 2025).
64
FLDS, Capabilities (last visited March 16, 2025). JUMP TO SUMMARY ANALYSIS RELEVANT INFORMATION BILL HISTORY
9
cybersecurity event data that helps the COC monitor threats, analyze vulnerabilities, and coordinate incident
response efforts statewide.
65
The grant program is funded through the General Appropriations Act and operates on an annual basis.
66
Florida’s Data Breach Notification Laws
Current law requires covered entities,
67 government entities,
68 and third-party agents
69 to take reasonable
measures to protect personal information stored in electronic form.
70 If a data breach affects 500 or more
individuals in the state, covered entities and government entities must notify the Department of Legal Affairs
(DLA) as soon as possible but within 30 days of determining that a breach has occurred or is reasonably believed
to have occurred. If the entity provides written justification, it may receive an additional 15 days to complete the
notification. Notices to the DLA must include a synopsis of the breach, the number of individuals affected, any free
services offered, a copy of the individual notification (or explanation of alternative actions taken), and contact
information for further inquiries.
71 Upon request, the covered entity must also provide a police report, forensic
analysis, breach response policies, and details on remediation efforts.
72
The entity must also notify affected individuals as soon as possible but no later than 30 days, with reasonable time
allowed to assess the breach, identify those affected, and restore system integrity. If a law enforcement agency
determines that disclosure would interfere with an active investigation, notification may be delayed for a specified
period upon written request. Additionally, if the entity determines—after investigation and consultation with law
enforcement—that the breach is unlikely to result in harm, individual notification is not required; however, the
entity must document this determination in writing an submit it to the DLA within 30 days.
73
For breaches impacting more than 1,000 individuals, covered entities and government agencies must also notify
major nationwide consumer reporting agencies without unreasonable delay.
74 Third-party agents responsible for
maintaining, storing, or processing personal information on behalf of a covered entity or government entity must
notify the entity of a breach within 10 days of discovering it.
75
A violation of these provisions constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice. DLA may take legal action to
obtain a declaratory judgement, issue injunctions, or seek damages on behalf of affected consumers or government
entities.
76 Failure to comply with breach notification requirements may result in civil penalties of up to $500,000.
Violators are subject to a $1,000 per day fine for the first 30 days of noncompliance, increasing to $50,000 per
additional 30-day period, up to 180 days. If the violation extends beyond 180 days, total penalties cannot exceed
$500,000.
77
65
See FLDS, Frequently Asked Questions (last visited March 16, 2025); see also FLDS, Year 2 (FY 2024/25) Florida Local
Government Cybersecurity Grant Webinar (last visited March 16, 2025).
66
See ch. 2024-231, s. 200, L.O.F.
67
“Covered entity” means a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, trust, estate, cooperative, association, or other
commercial entity that acquires, maintains, stores, or uses personal information. For purposes of the notice requirements, the
term includes a governmental entity. S. 501.171(1)(b), F.S.
68
“Governmental entity” means any department, division, bureau, commission, regional planning agency, board, district,
authority, agency, or other instrumentality of this state that acquires, maintains, stores, or uses data in electronic form
containing personal information. S. 501.171(1)(f), F.S.
69
“Third-party agent” means an entity that has been contracted to maintain, store, or process personal information on behalf
of a covered entity or governmental entity. S. 501.171(1)(h), F.S.
70
S. 501.171(2), F.S.
71
Judicial branch entities, the Executive Office of the Governor, the Department of Financial Services, and the Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services may fulfill breach notification requirements by posting the required information on an
agency-managed website instead of submitting written notification to DLA. S. 501.171(3)(e), F.S.
72
S. 501.171(3), F.S.
73
S. 501.171(4), F.S.
74
S. 501.171(5), F.S.
75
S. 501.171(6), F.S.
76
S. 501.171(9)(a), F.S.
77
S. 501.171(9)(b), F.S. JUMP TO SUMMARY ANALYSIS RELEVANT INFORMATION BILL HISTORY
10
RECENT LEGISLATION:
YEAR BILL # HOUSE SPONSOR(S) SENATE SPONSOR OTHER INFORMATION
2024 CS/CS/HB 473 Giallombardo, Steele DiCeglie The bill was vetoed by the
Governor.
BILL HISTORY
COMMITTEE REFERENCE ACTION DATE
STAFF
DIRECTOR/
POLICY CHIEF
ANALYSIS
PREPARED BY
Information Technology Budget &
Policy Subcommittee
Davila Villa
Civil Justice & Claims
Subcommittee
State Affairs Committee