Advertisement

May 18, 2013

Massachusetts Data Security Regulations: Deadline Looms for Amending Service Provider Contracts

Just a reminder that March 1 is an important deadline with respect to the Massachusetts data privacy and security regulations (the “Regulations”).  As a refresher, the Regulations require all entities that “own or license” personal information of Massachusetts residents — wherever the entity is located — to comply with provisions requiring specific administrative, physical and technical safeguards in respect of the personal information.   To reduce the risk of data breaches involving third-party service providers who will have access to personal information in some way, the Regulations require companies covered by the Regulations to take reasonable measures to select vendors capable of “maintaining appropriate security measures to protect such personal information consistent with [the] regulations and any applicable federal regulations.” Furthermore, the Regulations mandate that companies contractually require their service providers to safeguard personal information in accordance with the Massachusetts regulations and applicable federal requirements. Regardless of location, an entity must comply if it receives, stores, maintains, processes, or otherwise has access to personal information of Massachusetts residents in connection with the provision of goods and services or in connection with employment. Because the Regulations contain such broad definitions for terms such as “own and license,” most service providers – from your payroll provider to your e-commerce hosting provider – are likely subject to this requirement.

The contract provision includes a grandfather clause, providing that all contracts entered into before March 1, 2010 are exempt from complying with this requirement until March 1, 2012. By March 1, 2012, companies that own or license PI of Massachusetts residents must ensure that pre-March 1, 2010 contracts with third party service providers are amended to incorporate appropriate contractual requirements.  Regardless, service provider contracts entered into after the March 1, 2010 effective date of the Massachusetts regulations have been and continue to be required to contain such a contractual representation of compliance.

If your company relies on service providers to receive, store, process or otherwise access personal information of Massachusetts residents, you should be ensuring that those service provider contracts contain a representation that appropriate administrative, physical and technical safeguards are maintained to protect the personal information.  Letters from service providers “certifying” that they are in compliance with 201 CMR 17 are not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Regulations if they do not specifically act as an amendment to whatever agreement you have in place with a service provider.

©1994-2013 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Member

Cynthia is a Member of Mintz Levin’s Corporate & Securities Section, Chair of the Privacy & Security practice, and a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP). Cynthia represents companies in information, communications, and technology, including e-commerce and other electronic transactions. She counsels clients through all stages of the “corporate lifecycle,” from start-ups through mid- and later-stage financings to IPO, and has broad experience in technology and business law, including online contracting issues, licensing, domain name issues, software...

(617) 348-1732

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.