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.

Risk

2/20/2019
07:00 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Insurer Offers GDPR-Specific Coverage for SMBs

Companies covered under the EU mandate can get policies for up to $10 million for fines, penalties, and other costs.

Cyber insurance provider Coalition has announced new policies explicitly designed to cover fines and costs stemming from violations of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The policies are targeted primarily at small and midsize companies that handle data on or offer goods and services to EU residents. Policy limits range from $25,000 to $10 million, covering defense costs as well as fines and penalties resulting from GDPR violations, says Joshua Motta, CEO and founder of Coalition.

The costs for Coalition's policies range from $50 per year to over $100,000 per year for companies that want the full $10 million coverage. The average cost for a Coalition policy with a $1 million to $2 million limit will be around $4,000 a year. "This includes fines and penalties resulting not only from data and privacy breaches, as are commonly covered in the cyber insurance market, but also, importantly, a company's failure to comply with their privacy policy," Motta says.

Unlike other data privacy laws, GDPR imposes penalties even when there is no actual data breach. In fact, since the regulation went into effect last May, EU regulators have taken action against numerous organizations for either failing to comply with their own policies or for not fully complying with GDPR requirements for privacy disclosures, data collection, processing, and use. One example is French data protection authority CNIL's 50 million euros fine on Google last month for the company's "lack of transparency, inadequate information, and lack of valid consent" when collecting data for ads personalization.

Historically, data breach insurance policies have been sufficient because fines and penalties under existing privacy laws have only been triggered in the event of a breach, Motta notes. "[With GDPR], companies can now be fined even if they've never lost a single piece of customer data, introducing a significant gap in coverage across most cyber insurance policies," Motta says. Coalition's new policy is aimed at addressing this gap, he says.

Swirling Uncertainity
Questions about the availability of insurance for GDPR violations and the insurability of fines and penalties under the statute remain mostly unanswered nine months after the law went into effect. In a report last November, the National Law Review doubted whether existing cyber insurance policies cover fines and penalties related to GDPR violations. The article pointed to several studies that called into question whether any company would be able to insure against the huge fines that can be imposed under GDPR. The law allows for fines of up to 4% of a company's annual global revenues, or up to 20 million euros if that amount is higher.

One of the studies quoted in the National Law Review article was from insurance giant Aon and law firm DLA Piper. The study, conducted just before GDPR went into effect, found that, with the exception of Norway and Finland, GDPR fines are not insurable in almost any other EU nation. Even so, insurance needs to be a component of an organization's GDPR risk management strategy, the report noted.

Robert Stines, a partner at law firm Freeborn & Peters, says the effectiveness of cyber insurance as a risk-transference method for GDPR remains untested and will depend on the language in the policy. "If there is broad language that will cover all administrative fines and all claims under the GDPR, then cyber insurance might be an effective risk-transference measure," Stines says.

But often insurance policies have exclusions and limiting language that leave them open to interpretation, he cautions. When considering a policy, organizations need to be wary of sublimits, exclusions, and how specific terms such as "claims," "damages," and "fines" are defined.       

Many US companies do not have the technical capabilities to address liability risks caused by GDPR requirements, such as data pseudonymization or anonymization, providing users with portable copies of their data, and deleting data upon a user's request, Stines says. But GDPR is still so new that it is not clear how the mandate will be enforced, especially on US companies that do not operate in the EU but handle data on EU residents, Stines says.

The expectation that GDPR will create new exposure and risk for companies is driving demand for GDPR-related insurance, he says. "Insurance companies are trying to supply products to meet the demand," Stines adds. "The difficulty that insurance companies have is underwriting this risk because GDPR is so new and untested."

Before considering a policy, organizations need to have a clear understanding of how they collect, store, use, and destroy data related to EU residents. "If the GDPR applies, insurance is an excellent measure to augment cyber resilience, but it cannot be the primary source," Stines says.

Related Content:

  

 

 

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two cybersecurity summits at Interop 2019. Learn from the industry's most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the Interop agenda here.

Jai Vijayan is a seasoned technology reporter with over 20 years of experience in IT trade journalism. He was most recently a Senior Editor at Computerworld, where he covered information security and data privacy issues for the publication. Over the course of his 20-year ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
Cybersecurity Team Holiday Guide: 2019 Gag Gift Edition
Ericka Chickowski, Contributing Writer,  12/2/2019
Navigating Security in the Cloud
Diya Jolly, Chief Product Officer, Okta,  12/4/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-19647
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
radare2 through 4.0.0 lacks validation of the content variable in the function r_asm_pseudo_incbin at libr/asm/asm.c, ultimately leading to an arbitrary write. This allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact via crafted input.
CVE-2019-19648
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
In the macho_parse_file functionality in macho/macho.c of YARA 3.11.0, command_size may be inconsistent with the real size. A specially crafted MachO file can cause an out-of-bounds memory access, resulting in Denial of Service (application crash) or potential code execution.
CVE-2019-19642
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-08
On SuperMicro X8STi-F motherboards with IPMI firmware 2.06 and BIOS 02.68, the Virtual Media feature allows OS Command Injection by authenticated attackers who can send HTTP requests to the IPMI IP address. This requires a POST to /rpc/setvmdrive.asp with shell metacharacters in ShareHost or ShareNa...
CVE-2019-19637
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-08
An issue was discovered in libsixel 1.8.2. There is an integer overflow in the function sixel_decode_raw_impl at fromsixel.c.
CVE-2019-19638
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-08
An issue was discovered in libsixel 1.8.2. There is a heap-based buffer overflow in the function load_pnm at frompnm.c, due to an integer overflow.