Louisiana Senate Bill SB176

Louisiana 2014 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/10/14
• Refer: 3/10/14

Caption

Provides relative to the Database Security Breach Notification Law. (8/1/14)

Impact

The bill, if enacted, would significantly impact state law concerning how financial institutions and businesses manage and retain consumer data. By imposing strict guidelines on data retention related to access devices, it aims to reduce vulnerabilities associated with data breaches. The provisions for reimbursement by violators of the law, particularly for financial institutions affected by security breaches, intend to hold entities accountable for maintaining adequate protective measures.

Summary

Senate Bill 176, known as the Database Security Breach Notification Bill, is a legislative proposal aimed at strengthening data security measures within the state of Louisiana. The bill outlines specific definitions related to access devices, which include credit and debit cards, and mandates that businesses retain personal information from transactions only for a limited time—specifically, no longer than 45 days after authorization. This measure is intended to enhance consumer protection by limiting the potential for data breaches and unauthorized access to sensitive information.

Sentiment

Overall sentiment surrounding SB 176 appears to be supportive among consumer rights advocates and financial institutions that prioritize the protection of consumer data. Proponents argue that the bill fortifies existing regulations and establishes clearer guidelines for data security practices. However, concerns may arise among businesses regarding the potential for increased compliance costs and the implications of being held financially responsible for breaches.

Contention

One notable point of contention surrounding SB 176 involves the responsibility placed on service providers and businesses regarding data retention and the repercussions of any breaches. Critics may argue that imposing financial liability on institutions might lead to increased operational costs, which could ultimately be passed on to consumers. This situation raises questions about whether the benefits of enhanced consumer protection outweigh the financial impacts on businesses operating in the state.