Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Attacks/Breaches

6/26/2017
05:16 PM
50%
50%

Anthem Agrees to $115 Million Settlement for 2015 Breach

If approved, it will dwarf settlements paid by Target, Home Depot, and Ashley Madison.

On Friday, June 23, Anthem Healthcare agreed to settle a series of lawsuits related to the company's 2015 data breach, which impacted 78.8 million individuals. The settlement includes a payment of $115 million and three years of additional security protections.

Most of the money will be allotted to an additional two years of credit monitoring and identity protection services, and $15 million will be allocated to pay out-of-pocket costs, up to a certain amount. Class members who claim out-of-pocket costs may receive compensation of $36 to $50. 

If approved by the judge, who is scheduled to hear the motion on Aug. 17, the settlement would be far larger than other recent settlements made for large-scale data breaches: Target agreed to pay $18.5 million last month for a 2013 breach of 41 million customer records, Ashley Madison agreed to pay $17.5 million in December for the doxing attack that affected 37 million customers, and Home Depot paid $43.5 million over two separate settlements (to banks and customers) for a 2014 breach affecting 50 million customers.

According to a statement on the Anthem website, "as part of the settlement, Anthem has agreed to continue the significant information security practice changes that we undertook in the wake of the cyber attack, and we have agreed to implement additional protections over the next three years." According to a preliminary motion filed by attorneys, many details of these protections will remain confidential.

The Anthem attack was reported in February 2015 and leaked customers' income data and Social Security numbers, but likely not medical information. A report by the California Department of Insurance, released in January of this year, stated that an investigation found "with a significant degree of confidence" that a foreign government was behind the attack. Earlier research specifically implicated threat actors operating from China.

Read more details here.

Dark Reading's Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Joe Stanganelli
100%
0%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
6/26/2017 | 6:38:32 PM
Ashley Madison comparison
Of course, Anthem still has a profitable and viable business model -- unlike, in all likelihood, Ashley Madison these days. The Ashley Madison breach did FAR more damage to the company than the legal costs.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
6/27/2017 | 4:29:09 PM
Settlement
78.8 million individuals impacted and only $115 Million, this sounds not that much.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
6/27/2017 | 4:31:12 PM
out-of-pocket cost
"Class members who claim out-of-pocket costs may receive compensation of $36 to $50."

This is like a joke, lost my personal data and they pay me $50? Am I getting this right?
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
6/27/2017 | 4:34:12 PM
Re: Ashley Madison comparison
"Anthem still has a profitable and viable business model"

I would think so, they might also still be suing old technologies.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
6/27/2017 | 4:35:40 PM
Re: Ashley Madison comparison
"The Ashley Madison breach did FAR more damage"

And also embarrassment to the users of the site.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
6/27/2017 | 4:35:57 PM
medical information
 

"but likely not medical information."

Why is this still "likely", there is a settlement and we still do not know if medical data was breached. 
Sara Peters
50%
50%
Sara Peters,
User Rank: Author
6/28/2017 | 10:36:21 AM
Re: out-of-pocket cost
@Dr. T:  I'm with you. These settlements sound big at first, but once you factor in the number of people involved, it becomes pretty pitiful.

And yet this is a, comparatively, very big settlement, against a company that actually handled their breach response quite admirably. Other companies that did a lousy job from start to finish and showed no regard for their customers (Ashley-Madison) got away with smaller settlements.

 
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
6/28/2017 | 12:18:35 PM
Re: Ashley Madison comparison
@Joe Very much agree with your comparison. Ashley Madison would have tarnished their brand reputation as well. Similar to Arthur Andersen back in the Enron days, these indirect costs can cripple an organizaiton into extinction. We shall see how AM fairs in the years to come.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
6/28/2017 | 12:22:41 PM
Re: out-of-pocket cost
@Dr.T, as Sarah stated when the hard numbers are broken down the numbers aren't a good reflection of how an individual should be compensated for a loss of their information. The numbers are most definitely jokeworthy. But playing devil's advocate, what should the numbers be for a payout for losing personal data? Based on the amount of users would Anthem be able to support this claim and stay in business? 
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
6/29/2017 | 9:32:44 AM
Re: out-of-pocket cost
@Sara: But health data is a more legally protected class of information than whether one is looking to cheat on a partner. Plus, I daresay that Anthem has *waaaaay* more customers than Ashley Madison ever did. On a related note, potential HIPAA violations created tons of potential liability that Anthem wanted to avoid seeing a day in court over. So the difference in the settlement amounts makes sense for these reasons alone.

Also, as I understand it, the Ashley Madison breach involved an insider attack -- which, unfortunately, one can only do so much to prevent. The Anthem breach, however, involved a series of major security missteps. ( See, e.g., enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netsecur/anthem-could-face-legal-fallout-from-hack.html ). And even then, months passed between the time evidence of a likely attack became known (thanks to independent security researchers) and Anthem actually did anything.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 6/4/2020
Abandoned Apps May Pose Security Risk to Mobile Devices
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/29/2020
How AI and Automation Can Help Bridge the Cybersecurity Talent Gap
Peter Barker, Chief Product Officer at ForgeRock,  6/1/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: What? IT said I needed virus protection!
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-13842
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). A dangerous AT command was made available even though it is unused. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200010 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13843
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS software before 2020-06-01. Local users can cause a denial of service because checking of the userdata partition is mishandled. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200014 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13839
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). Code execution can occur via a custom AT command handler buffer overflow. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200007 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13840
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). Code execution can occur via an MTK AT command handler buffer overflow. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200008 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13841
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 9 and 10 (MTK chipsets). An AT command handler allows attackers to bypass intended access restrictions. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200009 (June 2020).