United States law applies in MissouriMissouri is a state of the United States, whose 134 researched instruments are listed on the United States page, not here. The law of Missouri, described on this page below, applies here too.
10 of 12 named instruments researched to a stage, across five of the ten areas of law we track: 10 in force. As of .
When each starts10 of 10 carry a date. Earlier is before 2014.
in forcenot yet in forceblocked by a courtproposedno longer in force
Missouri has no general AI-transparency or output-labeling statute requiring disclosure that content is AI-generated or that a user is interacting with a chatbot, and no comprehensive AI-risk-management or high-risk-system act has been enacted. Missouri does prohibit two AI-enabled harms outright.
Its child sexual abuse material definition, amended in 2026, reaches a computer-generated or AI-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, regardless of whether a real minor was involved, and promoting or possessing such material is a felony under the same offense structure that already governs photographic child sexual abuse material.
Separately, disclosing or threatening to disclose a realistic, digitally created or altered intimate depiction of an identifiable person, made with intent to harass or harm them or with knowledge or reckless disregard that it will cause harm, is a felony offense that applies regardless of whether the depiction carries a disclaimer that it is fabricated or unauthorized; an online service provider is not liable for good-faith efforts to restrict access to such depictions.
Both provisions took effect .
A 2026 bill reported by contemporaneous coverage as prohibiting an artificial intelligence system from being advertised or represented as a licensed mental health professional or therapy provider, generally described as riding on House Bill 2372, does not appear in the truly agreed to and finally passed text of either House Bill 2372 or its companion Senate Bill 1019, both signed into law this session; neither bill's enacted text contains an artificial intelligence, chatbot, or therapy-related provision, so no such duty is catalogued here.
Several other 2026 bills addressing AI legal personhood and liability, standalone chatbot disclosure, and AI use in political advertising were introduced and died at adjournment without passing both chambers.
Missouri's definition of child sexual abuse material, amended in 2026, includes a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, where an ordinary person viewing it would conclude it depicts an actual minor, regardless of whether the minor was actually engaged in that conduct.
Promoting such material in the first degree, meaning possessing it with intent to promote or promoting it, where the depicted or apparent child is under fourteen, is a class B felony, rising to a class A felony if knowingly promoted to a minor, with three years of parole and probation ineligibility.
Promoting the same material where the depicted or apparent child is under eighteen is the lesser offense of promoting in the second degree, a class D felony rising to a class B felony if knowingly promoted to a minor. Possessing such material is a class D felony for a single still image, rising to a class B felony for more than twenty images, for one video, or on a repeat offense, with separate punishment for each item possessed.
The statute does not require a provider of electronic communication or remote computing services to monitor users or their communications.
A person commits disclosure of an intimate digital depiction by disclosing, or threatening to disclose, a realistic depiction of an identifiable individual created or altered through digital manipulation that shows uncovered genitals or similar intimate anatomy, the transfer of bodily sexual fluids, or the individual engaging in sexually explicit conduct, where the person intends to harass, threaten, or harm the depicted individual, or knows or recklessly disregards that the disclosure will cause them harm.
Disclosure is a class D felony and a threat to disclose is a class E felony, each rising to a class C felony on a second or subsequent violation, or where the depiction could reasonably be expected to affect a government or election proceeding or facilitate violence. A disclaimer stating the depiction is unauthorized or fabricated is not a defense.
An interactive computer service provider is not liable under this section for good-faith efforts to restrict access to such depictions or for giving others the technical means to do so.
Missouri has no comprehensive consumer personal-data-protection statute. Multiple bills, including SB 731 (2024) and the Enhanced Personal Privacy Act, HB 3537 (2026), have been introduced and none has reached the governor. Missouri's general breach notification duty, Mo.
Rev. Stat. Sec. 407.1500, in effect since , has a personal information definition (a name combined with a Social Security number, a driver's license or government identification number, a financial account or card number with an access code, medical information, or health insurance information) that carries no biometric, genetic, or student-data element, so it imposes no heightened restriction on biometric or genetic data itself.
Missouri does separately regulate genetic information within its insurance code: an insurer may not require, request, or consider an individual's genetic information or a genetic test in a health-plan eligibility, premium, or coverage decision (Mo.
Rev. Stat. Sec. 375.1303, since ); an employer may not use an employee's or job applicant's genetic information or genetic test results to discriminate against them or restrict a right or benefit, subject to statutory exceptions (Sec. 375.1306, since ); and any person who creates, stores, receives, or furnishes genetic information in the ordinary course of business, a profession, or a service must hold it as a confidential medical record and disclose it only with the individual's written authorization (Sec. 375.1309, since ).
A cluster of Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)-style biometric bills (SB 554, HB 407, HB 500, HB 1970) has been introduced across the 2025 and 2026 sessions, each with a private right of action modeled on the Illinois statute, while SB 1359 (2026), like SB 448 (2025), would instead provide that a private entity holding biometric identifiers is not liable for damages for their unauthorized or negligent disclosure if it posts warning notices and keeps a retention policy; none has passed a floor vote in either chamber.
The breach statute's own definition of person includes government, so its notification duty binds both private and government data holders, and the Missouri Attorney General has exclusive authority to bring an action for a willful and knowing violation; enforcement of the genetic-information provisions likewise runs to a state regulator, the Director of the Department of Commerce and Insurance, and neither the breach statute nor the genetic-information provisions create a private right of action.
Any person, defined to include an individual, corporation, or other legal or commercial entity as well as a government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, that owns or licenses personal information of a Missouri resident, or that conducts business in Missouri and owns or licenses such information, must notify the affected consumer of a breach of security without unreasonable delay.
Personal information is limited to a name combined with a Social Security number, a driver's license or other unique government identification number, a financial account or card number with an access code, a unique electronic identifier or routing code with an access code, medical information, or health insurance information, and excludes information lawfully obtained from publicly available sources or government records made available to the general public; it carries no biometric, genetic, or student-data element.
A person providing notice to more than 1,000 consumers at one time must also notify the Attorney General's office and every nationwide consumer reporting agency without unreasonable delay. The Attorney General has exclusive authority to bring an action for actual damages for a willful and knowing violation and may seek a civil penalty of up to $150,000 per breach or series of related breaches, and the statute creates no private right of action.
In force since , effective .Binds public and private bodies.
What this law does
Within the insurance code, Missouri separately restricts the use and disclosure of genetic information, defined as the results of a genetic test (Sec. 375.1300).
An insurer may not, in connection with the offer, sale, or renewal of a health plan, require or request a person or their blood relative to provide genetic information or take a genetic test, or consider genetic information or a genetic test without the person's approval, in determining eligibility, premiums, or coverage (Sec. 375.1303, effective since ); a violation is enforced as an unfair trade practice.
An employer may not use an employee's or job applicant's genetic information or genetic test results to discriminate against them or restrict a right or benefit otherwise due them, except for underwriting individual or group life, disability income, or long-term care insurance, action required by law, action taken with written permission, or use of information directly related to job responsibilities (Sec. 375.1306).
Any person who, in the ordinary course of business, a profession, or rendering a service, creates, stores, receives, or furnishes genetic information must hold it as a confidential medical record and may not disclose it without the individual's or their authorized representative's written authorization, except for de-identified statistical data, federally regulated health research, release under legal or regulatory process, or body identification (Sec. 375.1309).
Sections 375.1306 and 375.1309 were both added by the original 1998 enactment and substantially amended by Laws 2007, S.B. 66, effective . Neither the employer restriction nor the confidentiality duty is limited to private employers or private handlers of genetic information on its face.
Enforcement of Secs. 375.1303, 375.1306, and 375.1309 runs to the Director of the Department of Commerce and Insurance, who may issue administrative orders or bring a civil action for an injunction and other relief under Mo. Rev. Stat. Secs. 374.046 and 374.048; none of these sections creates a private right of action.
Missouri's computer-crime statutes track the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act's bare without-authorization test rather than Virginia's narrower malicious-intent-or-deceptive-means standard: RSMo Sections 569.095 to 569.099 criminalize accessing, examining, disclosing, taking, modifying, or destroying computer data, equipment, or network access without authorization or without reasonable grounds to believe authorization exists, and no Missouri case law addresses how a state court would read that phrase for automated collection of a public, unauthenticated web page.
Section 537.525 adds an independent state-law civil action for compensatory damages and attorney's fees against a violator of those sections, on top of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)'s own private right of action.
Missouri has no text-and-data-mining statute, no sui generis or other state database right, and no state biometric-privacy or public-personal-data-scraping statute; copyright, database rights, and personal-data-in-scraped-content questions are governed by federal law alone, already addressed in the federal document for this topic. robots.txt carries no independent legal weight under Missouri law, and no reported Missouri decision addresses terms-of-service enforceability, browsewrap versus clickwrap, or trespass to chattels in an automated-collection dispute.
In addition to any other civil remedy, the owner or lessee of a computer system, network, program, service, or data may bring a civil action for compensatory damages, including the expense of verifying the system was not altered, damaged, or deleted, against any person who violates Sections 569.095 to 569.099. A court may award reasonable attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff.
This is an independent state-law civil remedy on top of, not a substitute for, the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act's own private right of action.
A person commits tampering with computer data, computer equipment, or computer users if, knowingly and without authorization or without reasonable grounds to believe he or she has authorization, the person modifies, destroys, discloses, or takes computer data, programs, or supporting documentation; discloses or takes a password or other information controlling access to a system; accesses a computer and intentionally examines information about another person; accesses, modifies, destroys, damages, or takes computer equipment or a computer, system, or network; or denies computer system services to an authorized user.
Each offense is a class A misdemeanor unless committed to defraud or obtain property worth 750 dollars or more, or (for tampering with computer equipment) causes damage of 750 dollars or more, in which case it is a class E felony, rising to a class D felony where the equipment damage reaches 25,000 dollars or more.
The without-authorization test is undefined by the statute and, unlike Virginia's parallel statute, carries no separate requirement of malicious intent or intentionally deceptive means; no Missouri appellate decision was located applying it to automated collection of a public, unauthenticated web page.
Missouri's private-sector security law is a breach-notification duty with no accompanying safeguards, disposal, or information-security-program mandate, so no reasonable-security statute distinct from that duty is described here for the general private-sector duty-bearer. Mo.
Rev. Stat. Sec. 407.1500 (enacted 2009 H.B. 62), effective , requires any person that owns or licenses personal information of a Missouri resident, or that conducts business in Missouri and owns or licenses such information, to notify the affected consumer of a breach of security without unreasonable delay, and requires a person that merely maintains records containing another's personal information to notify the owner or licensee of a breach immediately following discovery.
The section imposes no separate duty to maintain reasonable security or safeguards over personal information before a breach occurs, no data-retention-and-destruction duty, and no information-security-program requirement; its own compliance path at subsection 3(1) deems a person compliant with the notice-timing requirement where that person already maintains notice procedures as part of an information security policy for the treatment of personal information and those procedures meet the section's timing rules, which excuses a person that already has such a policy from a second notice procedure rather than requiring one.
This provision is already this jurisdiction's privacy-topic row and is not repeated here. No Missouri statute imposes a general duty on a private-sector business to maintain reasonable security procedures over, or to safely dispose of, personal information it holds, comparable to New York's SHIELD Act safeguards provision or Massachusetts's 201 CMR 17.00; none was located in the sources checked.
No Missouri statute setting security requirements that a software product or connected device must meet before or after being placed on the market, comparable to California's or Oregon's connected-device statutes, is described here; none was located in the sources checked. No Missouri statute requiring a private business generally to report an exploited vulnerability or a security incident to an authority, a computer security incident response team (CSIRT), or users is described here; none was located in the sources checked.
No sector-specific cyber-resilience regime binding a class of regulated entity and reaching a digital service the LexLint activity vocabulary can express is described here; none was located in the sources checked, and Missouri's remaining financial-services and information-technology procurement statutes were not read in full, so their content on the point is not established here. Missouri's Insurance Data Security Act, Mo.
Rev. Stat. Secs. 375.1400 to 375.1427 (enacted 2025 H.B. 974, effective ), requires a "licensee," any person licensed, authorized to operate, or registered, or required to be licensed, authorized, or registered, under the state's insurance laws, to develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive written information security program based on a risk assessment, with administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, a designated responsible person, an incident response plan, and an annual written compliance certification to the director of the Department of Commerce and Insurance; its program and notice duties are filed as rows of their own.
Licensees have until to implement the information-security-program duty at Section 375.1405 and until to implement that section's third-party-service-provider due-diligence duty; Section 375.1400 states that the Act creates no private right of action of its own and does not curtail one that would otherwise exist. Missouri's Insurance Data Security Act requires an insurance licensee to maintain a comprehensive written information security program.
A licensee must notify the director of a cybersecurity event within four business days of a determination that it has occurred. Missouri's Cybersecurity Mission Act authorizes the Missouri National Guard to enter into agreements to render cybersecurity aid to political subdivisions and others.
Each licensee must develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive written information security program that is based on its risk assessment and contains administrative, technical, and physical safeguards for nonpublic information and its information system. Each licensee must establish a written incident response plan designed to promptly respond to, and recover from, any cybersecurity event that compromises the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of nonpublic information.
If a licensee learns that a cybersecurity event has or may have occurred, the licensee, or an outside vendor or service provider designated to act on its behalf, must conduct a prompt investigation. A licensee must maintain records concerning all cybersecurity events for a period of at least three years from the date of the cybersecurity event.
Each insurer domiciled in Missouri must submit to the director by April fifteenth each year a written statement certifying that it is in compliance with section 375.1405. Licensees have until to implement section 375.1405 and until to implement its third-party service provider duty in subsection 6. A licensee with fewer than ten employees, including any independent contractors, is exempt from section 375.1405.
The Insurance Data Security Act takes effect on . In the Act, a person means any individual or any nongovernmental entity, including a nongovernmental partnership, corporation, branch, agency, or association.
A licensee must notify the director as promptly as practicable, and in no event later than four business days, from a determination that a cybersecurity event involving nonpublic information in its possession has occurred when a listed criterion is met. The notice duty is met where the licensee is domiciled in Missouri, or Missouri is its home state, and the event has a reasonable likelihood of materially harming a consumer residing in Missouri or a material part of its normal operations.
The notice duty is also met where the licensee reasonably believes that the nonpublic information involved is of two hundred fifty or more consumers residing in Missouri and the event meets either of two further conditions. An assuming insurer must notify its affected ceding insurers and the director of its state of domicile within three business days of making the determination that a cybersecurity event has occurred.
The licensee must provide as much of the listed information as practicable, in electronic form as directed by the director, and has a continuing obligation to update its notices. A licensee must comply with section 407.1500, as applicable, and give the director a copy of the notice sent to consumers when it is required to notify the director. The Insurance Data Security Act takes effect on .
In the Act, a person means any individual or any nongovernmental entity, including a nongovernmental partnership, corporation, branch, agency, or association.
Missouri's Attorney General adopted an age verification rule for pornographic websites in late 2025 under the Merchandising Practices Act, and the legislature codified similar requirements in statute in 2026, signed and effective . No social media minor access law, app store verification law, or design code has been enacted, though several social media age verification bills were considered and died in the 2026 session.
Missouri Attorney General rule declaring it an unfair practice under the Merchandising Practices Act for a commercial entity to operate a website or application where a substantial portion (33 percent or more) of content is pornographic for minors without reasonable age verification of users as 18 or older.
Requires a commercial entity that knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material on an internet website, including a social media platform, more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors, to use a third party to perform reasonable age verification that an individual attempting to access the material is eighteen years of age or older, and bars that third party from retaining any identifying information of the individual. The Attorney General enforces the section. Signed by the governor on ; effective .
These areas of law were researched here and no instrument was recorded. Each finding says what the research checked, as of the date under it. It describes our search, not a guarantee that no such law exists.
Reuse law
Missouri has no press-publisher neighbouring right, no mandatory platform-to-publisher bargaining code, and no codified hot-news misappropriation statute distinct from federal law. No Missouri bill comparable to California's Journalism Preservation Act or the federal Journalism Competition and Preservation Act was located. The Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo.
Rev. Stat. Chapter 407, prohibits deceptive acts or practices in connection with merchandise or services but names no provision reaching reproduction, aggregation, framing, or linking of journalism. No reported Missouri state-court decision addressing snippet reproduction, hot-news misappropriation, or the framing or linking of news content was located.
Federal copyright law, including 17 U.S.C. Section 107 fair use and the case law already covered in the national document for this topic, applies of its own force in Missouri and is not restated here.
As of .
Case law
No current case law for Missouri AI law
No current case law for Missouri privacy law
No current case law for Missouri scraping law
No current case law for Missouri cybersecurity law
No current case law for Missouri communications law
No current case law for Missouri content moderation law
No current case law for Missouri product and AI liability law
No current case law for Missouri digital accessibility law
No current case law for Missouri age gating law
No current case law for Missouri reuse law
Reporting clocks that run here18 instruments
The instruments whose obligation lines set a deadline for reporting an incident, a vulnerability or a personal-data breach, each deadline read from the sentence that carries it and listed shortest first. The law of Missouri comes first, then the law of the bodies above it that applies here.
Each flag is one law, and a link to it. Read down the scale: the clocks document's time axis, with the empty stretches shortened so the deadlines sit close. Flags on one line set the same duty at the same deadline, and the laws behind them are named to the right, with what each clock counts from.
The deadlines above on one time axis, shortest at the top. The axis keeps its order and, between neighbors, its proportion, but a stretch with no deadline on it is shortened, so the hour marks on the left are what say how far apart two stations really are. Beside each action, the laws that set it, what each counts from, and a status where the law is not yet in force. The List tab has the same data in full, with the sentences.
Notify the director as promptly as practicable, and in no event later than four business days, from a determination that a cybersecurity event involving nonpublic information in your possession has occurred, when Missouri is your state of domicile (insurer) or home state (producer) and the event has a reasonable likelihood of materially harming a consumer residing in Missouri or a material part of your normal operations, or when you reasonably believe the information involved is of 250 or more Missouri consumers and notice must be given to a government body, self-regulatory agency, or other supervisory body under state or federal law, or the event has a reasonable likelihood of that harm.
As an assuming insurer, notify your affected ceding insurers and the commissioner or director of insurance of your state of domicile within three business days of determining that a cybersecurity event has occurred.
Notify each affected Missouri consumer of a breach of security involving their personal information without unreasonable delay.
Notify the Missouri Attorney General's office and every nationwide consumer reporting agency without unreasonable delay if you provide notice to more than 1,000 consumers at one time.
The law of the United States, which applies in Missouri
Notify the NRC Headquarters Operations Center via the Emergency Notification System within one hour after discovery of a cyberattack that adversely impacted safety-related or important-to-safety functions, security functions, or emergency preparedness functions (including offsite communications), or that compromised support systems and equipment resulting in adverse impacts to those functions.
Also notify within one hour after discovery of a cyberattack that adversely impacted the safety, security, and emergency preparedness functions performed by digital assets described in 10 CFR 73.77(a)(1)(ii).
Notify the NRC Headquarters Operations Center within four hours after discovery of a cyberattack that could have caused such an adverse impact, after discovery of a suspected or actual cyberattack initiated by personnel with physical or electronic access to the systems in scope, or after notifying a local, State, or other Federal agency of an event related to your cyber security program that does not otherwise require notification.
Notify the NRC Headquarters Operations Center within eight hours after receipt or collection of information regarding observed behavior, activities, or statements that may indicate intelligence gathering or pre-operational planning related to a cyberattack against the systems in scope.
Use the site corrective action program to record vulnerabilities, weaknesses, failures and deficiencies in your cyber security program, and the notifications you make, within twenty-four hours of their discovery.
Once the final rule takes effect, report a covered cyber incident to the Agency not later than 72 hours after your organization reasonably believes that the covered cyber incident has occurred.
Once the final rule takes effect, report a ransom payment to the Agency not later than 24 hours after your organization makes the payment, even where the underlying ransomware attack is not itself a covered cyber incident.
Once the final rule takes effect, promptly submit an update to a previously submitted covered cyber incident report whenever substantial new or different information becomes available or a ransom payment is later made, continuing until your organization notifies the Agency that the incident has concluded and been fully mitigated and resolved, and preserve data relevant to the incident or payment under the procedures the final rule establishes.
Upon any responsible SCI personnel having a reasonable basis to conclude that an SCI event has occurred, begin appropriate corrective action and notify the Commission of the SCI event immediately.
Within 24 hours of that conclusion, submit a written notification to the Commission, made on a good faith, best efforts basis, that describes the SCI event and the systems affected and, to the extent available, your assessment of the market participants potentially affected, the potential impact on the market, and the steps you have taken, are taking or plan to take.
If the SCI event is resolved and the investigation closed within 30 calendar days, submit a final written notification within five business days after resolution. If not, submit an interim written notification within 30 calendar days after the event, and a final one within five business days after resolution and closure.
If your organization is a banking organization, notify your primary federal banking regulator, the OCC, the Federal Reserve Board, or the FDIC, whichever supervises it, about a notification incident, as soon as possible and no later than 36 hours after your organization determines that a notification incident has occurred.
A notification incident is the subset of computer-security incidents that has materially disrupted or degraded, or is reasonably likely to materially disrupt or degrade, your ability to serve customers, a business line, or an operation whose failure would threaten the financial stability of the United States, so a computer-security incident that falls short of that threshold does not by itself start this clock.
If your organization is a bank service provider, notify at least one bank-designated point of contact at each affected banking organization customer as soon as possible after your organization determines that it has experienced a computer-security incident that has materially disrupted or degraded, or is reasonably likely to materially disrupt or degrade, covered services provided to that banking organization for a period of four hours or more.
This duty carries a standard, as soon as possible, rather than a fixed number of hours to notify by, and that disruption threshold is what engages the duty rather than a period to notify within.
If you are a developer or provider of a frontier AI model, or an operator of critical infrastructure that uses an AI model to manage industrial control systems or other operational technologies, report any confirmed AI safety incident or AI security incident within 30 days of confirmation, and within 72 hours if the incident poses an imminent threat to national security, critical infrastructure or public safety.
If your organization is a federally insured credit union, notify the NCUA-designated point of contact of a reportable cyber incident by email, telephone, or another method the NCUA prescribes, so that the NCUA receives the notification as soon as possible and no later than 72 hours after your organization reasonably believes it has experienced a reportable cyber incident.
Where the reportable cyber incident is a disruption of business operations or unauthorized access to sensitive data facilitated through, or caused by, a compromise of a credit union service organization, cloud service provider, or other third-party data hosting provider, or by a supply chain compromise, the NCUA must receive the notification within 72 hours of your organization being notified by the third party if that is sooner.
Send the notice as soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days, after becoming aware that unauthorized access to or use of customer information has occurred or is reasonably likely to have occurred, delaying it only for the period the United States Attorney General specifies where the Attorney General determines that notice poses a substantial risk to national security or public safety (17 CFR 248.30(a)(4)(iii)).
Maintain written policies and procedures reasonably designed to require oversight, including through due diligence and monitoring, of service providers, including that a service provider notify you as soon as possible, and no later than 72 hours, after becoming aware of a breach in security resulting in unauthorized access to a customer information system it maintains (17 CFR 248.30(a)(5)(i)).
Rapidly report a cyber incident to the Department of Defense within 72 hours of discovering it, at the Department's DIBNet portal (dibnet.dod.mil), using a DoD-approved medium assurance certificate that you must obtain before you need to file a report.
Make those policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that each service provider takes appropriate measures to protect against unauthorized access to or use of customer information, and to notify you as soon as possible, but no later than 72 hours after becoming aware that a breach in security has occurred resulting in unauthorized access to a customer information system the service provider maintains.
If your organization is an Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting company, determine, without unreasonable delay after you discover a cybersecurity incident, whether the incident is material, and if it is, file a Form 8-K under Item 1.05 within four business days after you make that determination.
If the information called for in Item 1.05 is not determined or is unavailable when you file, state that in the filing and file an amendment to the Form 8-K within four business days after you determine it or it becomes available.
After you reasonably determine that a breach of your customers' CPNI has occurred, electronically notify the United States Secret Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation through the central reporting facility as soon as practicable, and in no event later than seven business days (47 CFR 64.2011(b)).
Do not notify customers or disclose the breach where the relevant investigating agency directs you in writing not to, for an initial period of up to 30 days that the agency may extend (47 CFR 64.2011(b)(3)).
If you are a vendor of personal health records (an entity that offers or maintains an electronic record of health information that can draw information from multiple sources and is managed, shared and controlled by or primarily for the individual) or a PHR related entity, notify each affected individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States, in plain language and without unreasonable delay, no later than 60 calendar days after you discover a breach of security of unsecured PHR identifiable health information.
Notify prominent media outlets serving a State or jurisdiction, without unreasonable delay and in no case later than 60 calendar days after you discover the breach, when the unsecured PHR identifiable health information of 500 or more of its residents is, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired during the breach.
If you are a third party service provider, notify the official designated in a written contract by the vendor of personal health records or PHR related entity you serve (or else a senior official of that vendor or entity), without unreasonable delay and in no case later than 60 calendar days after you discover the breach; identify each customer of that vendor or entity whose unsecured PHR identifiable health information has been, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired during the breach; and obtain acknowledgment that the notice was received.
Notify affected individuals without unreasonable delay and no later than 60 days after discovering a breach of unsecured protected health information.
For a breach of unsecured protected health information involving more than 500 residents of a State or jurisdiction, notify prominent media outlets serving that State or jurisdiction without unreasonable delay and in no case later than 60 calendar days after discovery of the breach.
If you are a business associate, notify the covered entity of a breach of unsecured protected health information without unreasonable delay and in no case later than 60 calendar days after discovery of the breach.
If your organization is a derivatives clearing organization, notify staff of the Division of Clearing and Risk promptly of any hardware or software malfunction, security incident, or targeted threat that materially impairs, or creates a significant likelihood of material impairment of, automated system operation, reliability, security, or capacity, and of any activation of your business continuity and disaster recovery plan.
If your organization is a designated contract market, notify Commission staff promptly of all cyber security incidents or targeted threats that actually or potentially jeopardize automated system operation, reliability, security, or capacity, as well as electronic trading halts and significant systems malfunctions and activations of your business continuity-disaster recovery plan.
If your organization is a swap execution facility, notify Commission staff promptly of all cyber security incidents or targeted threats that actually or potentially jeopardize automated system operation, reliability, security, or capacity, as well as electronic trading halts and material system malfunctions and activations of your business continuity-disaster recovery plan.
Evidence of sabotage, subversive activity, or an actual or threatened cyber incident involving or endangering any vessel, harbor, port, or waterfront facility must be reported immediately to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (for any cyber incident), and the Captain of the Port, or to their respective representatives.
Which of these one incident starts turns on the facts: the incident method works that through. The clocks document draws every clock in the LexLint law library on one axis, with the sentence beside every rung.
AIDrafted with AI
Drafted with AI from the cited sources under the direction of UnGovr staff. UnGovr holds editorial responsibility for this page. How this site is made
This page covers the instruments LexLint has researched
to a stage. Instruments named in the law library but not yet researched are
counted in the head and are not listed here. Every entry carries its own
primary source on its note page. This is a research index, not legal
advice.