United States law applies in South DakotaSouth Dakota is a state of the United States, whose 134 researched instruments are listed on the United States page, not here. The law of South Dakota, described on this page below, applies here too.
All 9 named instruments researched to a stage, across five of the ten areas of law we track: 9 in force. As of .
When each starts7 of 9 carry a date, 2 do not. Earlier is before 2014.
in forcenot yet in forceblocked by a courtproposedno longer in force
South Dakota has no general-purpose AI governance statute and no state-agency AI task force law; the AI-specific law on the books is confined to criminal prohibitions and one sector-specific disclosure duty.
SDCL §§ 22-24A-2(5), 22-24A-35 to 22-24A-37 (S.L. 2024, ch. 87, from SB 79) criminalize computer-generated child pornography, defined to include a depiction of an individual indistinguishable from an actual minor created using artificial intelligence, on the same felony terms as a depiction of an actual minor.
SDCL § 22-21-4(3), 22-21-4.1 (S.L. 2026, ch. 104, from SB 41) separately criminalizes creating or distributing nonconsensual digitally fabricated material depicting an identifiable individual in a state of nudity or engaged in sexual conduct, binding any person.
SDCL §§ 12-26-32 to 12-26-37 (S.L. 2025, ch. 68, from SB 164) imposes an election-specific disclosure duty on anyone who disseminates an AI-manipulated or -generated deepfake targeting a candidate within 90 days of an election, with a text-disclosure safe harbor and civil remedies for the candidate or the depicted individual.
SDCL § 22-24A-2(5) defines computer-generated child pornography to include a visual depiction of an actual minor altered to show a prohibited sexual act, an actual adult altered to appear as a minor engaged in a prohibited sexual act, or an individual indistinguishable from an actual minor created by the use of artificial intelligence or other computer technology capable of processing and interpreting specific data inputs to create a visual depiction.
Sections 22-24A-35 to 22-24A-37 were enacted by SB 79, signed by the Governor on . Possessing computer-generated child pornography is a Class 4 felony with a mandatory minimum sentence of one year, on the same terms as possessing a depiction of an actual minor. Distributing it is a Class 3 felony with a mandatory minimum of five years.
Manufacturing it is a Class 2 felony with a mandatory minimum of ten years, and there is no exemption for synthetic or AI-generated output in any of the three offenses. SDCL § 22-24A-7's civil-damages provision, unamended since 2014, arms a plaintiff for conduct proscribed by "§§ 22-24A-1 to 22-24A-20", a range that does not by its own terms reach §§ 22-24A-35 to -37; no source located addresses whether a court would read the civil-damages chapter to reach the successor sections.
SB 41 was introduced at the request of the Attorney General and signed by the Governor on .
SDCL § 22-21-4(3) makes it a Class 5 felony for an individual, without the consent or knowledge of the person depicted and with intent to self-gratify, alarm, annoy, embarrass, harass, invade privacy, threaten, or cause emotional, financial, physical, psychological, or reputational harm, to knowingly and intentionally create, disclose, disseminate, distribute, or sell digitally fabricated material depicting an identifiable individual in a state of nudity or engaged in sexual conduct.
Section 22-21-4.1 defines digitally fabricated material as an image, photograph, video, or other visual depiction that appears to an ordinary person to be an authentic depiction of an identifiable individual and is adapted, generated, or modified to falsely depict that individual's appearance, conduct, or voice; "identifiable" means recognizable by face, likeness, or another distinguishing characteristic.
Section 22-21-5 shields an electronic communication, information, mobile, telecommunication, interactive computer, or cable service provider, as those terms are defined under federal law, from liability under this section. The enrolled act for Chapter 104 of the 2026 South Dakota Session Laws carries no effective-date clause or emergency clause of its own, so it takes effect under South Dakota's general rule, SDCL § 2-14-16, on the first day of July following its passage.
This law prohibits any person, with intent to injure a candidate, from disseminating a deepfake (an image, audio recording, or video recording created or manipulated with artificial intelligence or other digital technology that a reasonable person would believe depicts the real speech or conduct of someone who did not engage in it) within 90 days of an election, unless the item carries the disclosure described in SDCL § 12-26-37; a violation is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
The required disclosure must be sized and placed as the statute specifies for each media type. The prohibition exempts satire or parody, a bona fide news broadcast that acknowledges questions about the item's authenticity, a paid periodical or website of general circulation carrying news and commentary, and an internet, hosting, or connectivity provider acting in a merely technical or automatic capacity.
The Attorney General, an injured or likely-to-be-injured candidate, or the individual depicted may seek injunctive or other equitable relief prohibiting the dissemination. A violator is also civilly liable to the candidate and the depicted individual for damages, costs, and attorney fees, proven by clear and convincing evidence.
South Dakota has no general controller or processor personal-data statute, and no comprehensive bill is even pending. South Dakota instead has two enacted sectoral instruments.
The Genetic Data Privacy Act, SDCL secs. 37-24-59 to 37-24-64 (SB 49, SL 2026 ch. 164), signed and in force since , requires opt-in express consent for a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company to collect, disclose, or use a consumer's genetic data or biological sample, and gives the consumer access, deletion, and destruction rights; it does not use the term biometric anywhere and treats genetic data as its own category, not interchangeable with biometric data.
South Dakota's breach-notification statute, SDCL secs. 22-40-19 to 22-40-26 (SL 2018 ch. 135), in force since , folds biometric data into personal information only narrowly, when paired with an employer-assigned identification number and used for authentication, and requires Attorney General notice above a threshold of 250 affected residents, not the 250,000 some secondary sources report.
That breach statute deems a notice violation a deceptive act under the state's general Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection chapter, which independently arms any adversely affected person with a private right of action; unlike Pennsylvania's, South Carolina's Chapter 80, or West Virginia's equivalents, South Dakota's Attorney General enforcement clause contains no exclusivity language closing that route, so whether the deeming-plus-UDAP chain actually arms a private plaintiff for a notice violation is an open question rather than a settled finding, since no case construing the two sections together is located.
Following discovery of a breach of system security, an information holder must disclose the breach to any affected South Dakota resident not later than 60 days from discovery, absent a law-enforcement delay. An information holder whose breach exceeds 250 South Dakota residents (not 250,000, correcting an initial WebSearch summary against the enrolled bill's own text) must also disclose the breach to the Attorney General by mail or electronic mail.
Personal information excludes information lawfully made available to the general public from government records; it folds in biometric data only in a narrow, conditional way, as one component of an employer-assigned identification number used for authentication, not as a freestanding sensitive category. The Attorney General may prosecute a failure to disclose as a deceptive act under SDCL sec. 37-24-6 and may separately bring an action for a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per day per violation.
South Dakota's general Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection chapter independently arms any person adversely affected by a sec. 37-24-6 violation with a private civil action for actual damages (SDCL sec. 37-24-31), and unlike the comparable enforcement clauses in Pennsylvania, South Carolina's Chapter 80, or West Virginia, this breach statute's enforcement section contains no exclusivity language naming the Attorney General as the sole enforcer.
Whether this deeming-plus-private-action chain actually arms a resident to sue over a notice violation is left here as an open, statute-supported question rather than a settled finding, since no case construing sec. 22-40-25 together with sec. 37-24-31 was found.
The Attorney General may petition a court to impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per violation of SDCL secs. 37-24-60 to 37-24-62.
This standalone enforcement provision does not cross-reference SDCL sec. 37-24-6, the general deceptive-act provision that the breach statute's own enforcement section deems a violation into, so the general Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection chapter's private right of action, SDCL sec. 37-24-31, which is keyed specifically to a sec. 37-24-6 violation, does not reach a Genetic Data Privacy Act violation. No damages-preservation clause exists either. This Act creates no private right of action.
South Dakota's Genetic Data Privacy Act defines genetic data as data other than de-identified data, regardless of format, concerning a consumer's genetic characteristics, and applies only to a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company and its service providers, not to personal data generally.
A covered company must obtain a consumer's opt-in express consent for collection, and separately for disclosure, third-party transfer, research use, retention beyond the initial test, and marketing use, and must maintain a security program. A consumer may access their genetic data, delete their account and genetic data, and obtain destruction of their biological sample; revocation of consent must be honored, and a biological sample destroyed, within 30 days.
The Act never mentions biometric data anywhere in its text; genetic and biometric data are treated as distinct categories in South Dakota law, not interchangeably. Exemptions cover Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-covered entities, medical screening, diagnosis or treatment, higher-education institutions, forensic laboratories, and human-subjects research.
South Dakota diverges from the federal computer-fraud baseline through SDCL §§ 43-43B-1 to 43-43B-3, its own computer-crime statute, which turns on lack of the owner's consent rather than on defeating a technical access barrier and grades nine listed acts from a Class 1 misdemeanor up to a Class 2 felony; no South Dakota appellate decision applying this chapter to automated public-web collection was located.
Terms-of-service enforceability, database rights, and robots.txt are governed by ordinary contract law and federal copyright law alone; South Dakota has no dedicated terms-of-service statute, no state database right, and no statute giving robots.txt independent legal weight. South Dakota's own publicly-available-information carve-out for personal data is researched under the privacy topic for this jurisdiction and is not restated here.
SDCL § 43-43B-1 makes it unlawful for a person to knowingly access, or exceed authorized access to, copy or obtain information from, disrupt or deny access to, or modify or destroy a computer system, software, or data, in each case without the consent of the owner; ordinary automated access to a page the operator has made generally available is not itself addressed by any reported South Dakota decision.
Section 43-43B-3 grades the nine listed acts from a Class 1 misdemeanor up to a Class 2 felony depending on which act was committed and, for the top tier, whether it was done as part of a deceptive scheme to obtain money, property, or services; § 43-43B-7 states that the chapter neither creates nor forecloses a private civil claim over the same conduct. The sections this entry groups came into force on different days.
Beyond the Division of Insurance's information security program rule for licensees, filed as a row of its own, South Dakota has no general reasonable-security or information-security-program statute of broad private-sector application comparable to New York's SHIELD Act or Massachusetts's 201 CMR 17.00, no statute setting security requirements a software product or connected device must meet to be placed on the market, comparable to California's or Oregon's connected-device statutes, no coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure statute, and no cybersecurity litigation safe-harbor tied to a named compliance framework.
South Dakota's own insurance-sector information-security regime rests on the State's implementation of the older NAIC Privacy of Consumer Financial and Health Information Model Act framework rather than the newer NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (#668) adopted by name in some other states: S.D. Codified Laws section 58-2-41 directs the Director of the Division of Insurance to promulgate privacy rules and to 'give substantial consideration to the privacy standards contained in the NAIC Privacy of Consumer Financial and Health Information Regulation as in effect as of ,' and no separate South Dakota statute or rule implementing the newer model law was located.
Under that authority (together with section 58-2-40's parallel authority over medical-record privacy rules), the Director adopted S.D. Admin. R. 20:06:45:20 through 20:06:45:26, first at 29 SDR 48 on , effective , and last amended at 31 SDR 67, effective . The rule requires a 'licensee,' defined at S.D. Admin.
R. 20:06:45:03(19)(A) as 'all licensed insurers, producers, and other persons licensed or required to be licensed, or authorized or required to be authorized, or registered or required to be registered pursuant to the insurance laws of this state,' to implement a comprehensive written information security program with administrative, technical and physical safeguards for customer information, commensurate with the licensee's size, complexity and the nature and scope of its activities (20:06:45:20), designed to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer information, protect against anticipated threats, and protect against unauthorized access that could cause substantial harm (20:06:45:21), with sections 20:06:45:23 through 20:06:45:26 offering non-exclusive illustrations (20:06:45:22) of assessing reasonably foreseeable internal and external threats, designing controls commensurate with the assessed risk, training staff, and regularly testing or monitoring the program's key controls, exercising due diligence over service providers and requiring them to meet the same objectives, and monitoring, evaluating and adjusting the program as technology, the sensitivity of information, threats, and the licensee's own business arrangements change.
The rule binds only a 'licensee,' and its row is flagged for an insurer: a developer whose app is not itself an insurance licensee falls outside the rule's scope regardless of which activities it declares.
South Dakota's breach-notification chapter, S.D. Codified Laws sections 22-40-19 through 22-40-26 (SL 2018, ch 135), was read in full and confirmed to impose only a post-breach disclosure duty, notice to affected residents within sixty days of discovery under section 22-40-20, notice to the Attorney General where a breach exceeds two hundred fifty state residents, and notice to consumer reporting agencies under section 22-40-24, with no affirmative security-program, reasonable-security or disposal clause of its own; section 22-40-23's alternative-notice provision lets an information holder substitute its own information-security-policy notification procedure for the chapter's default notice mechanics, but does not itself require adopting an information security program, so the chapter carries no safeguards duty and stays entirely the jurisdiction's privacy-topic row rather than a security instrument here.
No enacted South Dakota statute sets product-security or connected-device requirements, a coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure duty, or a sector cyber-resilience regime reaching a digital service the LexLint activity vocabulary can express.
S.D. Codified Laws sections 5-18A-50 through 5-18A-53 (SL 2023, ch 18), which bar a state purchasing agency from contracting with an entity owned or controlled by a government of China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Cuba or Venezuela and require a bidder's written certification of non-prohibited-entity status, are a state-procurement eligibility restriction rather than a product-security, vulnerability-reporting or security-program duty on a private vendor generally, and would not be filed here even on a wider reading.
No pending 2025 or 2026 South Dakota bill imposing a product-security, vulnerability-reporting, or general reasonable-security duty on the private sector was located. Rule 20:06:45:20 of the South Dakota Administrative Rules requires each licensee of the Division of Insurance to implement a comprehensive written information security program that includes administrative, technical, and physical safeguards for the protection of customer information.
A licensee must implement a comprehensive written information security program that includes administrative, technical, and physical safeguards for the protection of customer information. The safeguards must be appropriate to the size and complexity of the licensee and the nature and scope of its activities.
The program must be designed to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer information, protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of the information, and protect against unauthorized access to or use of the information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer.
A licensee is all licensed insurers, producers, and other persons licensed or required to be licensed, or authorized or required to be authorized, or registered or required to be registered pursuant to the insurance laws of this state. Customer information is nonpublic personal information about a customer, whether in paper, electronic, or other form, that is maintained by or on behalf of the licensee.
The chapter does not apply to information about companies or about individuals who obtain products or services for business, commercial, or agricultural purposes. The actions and procedures in sections 20:06:45:23 to 20:06:45:26 are non-exclusive illustrations that licensees may follow to implement the program requirements. The rule was adopted , effective , and amended effective .
South Dakota has required age verification for websites with content harmful to minors since July 2025, a law bolstered in public officials' view by the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2025 ruling in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. App store age verification bills have failed twice: SB 180 was rejected in committee in 2025, and HB 1275 (2026) passed the House 50 to 17 but was defeated in a Senate committee in March 2026. South Dakota has not enacted a social media minor-access law or a design code law as of this date.
Requires a covered platform, defined as a website whose regular course of trade or business is to create, host, or make available material harmful to minors, to implement reasonable age verification (state issued driver license or non-driver ID, bank account information, an age restricted debit or credit card, or another reliable method) and to prevent minors from accessing that material. Verifiers may not sell or retain identifying information. Search engines, internet service providers, and cloud providers are exempt.
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
South Dakota has no press-publisher neighbouring right, no compelled platform-to-publisher bargaining code, and no reported South Dakota appellate decision recognizing a distinct hot-news misappropriation doctrine; no South Dakota bill comparable to California's since-failed Journalism Preservation Act or the federal Journalism Competition and Preservation Act proposals was identified.
Snippet and headline reproduction, text-and-data-mining, database rights, and the liability of hyperlinking or framing are governed in South Dakota exclusively by federal copyright law and are not restated here; nothing in Title 22 (Crimes), Title 37 (Trade Regulation), or Title 43 (Property) of the South Dakota Codified Laws creates an aggregation-specific duty.
As of .
Case law
No current case law for South Dakota AI law
No current case law for South Dakota privacy law
No current case law for South Dakota scraping law
No current case law for South Dakota cybersecurity law
No current case law for South Dakota communications law
No current case law for South Dakota content moderation law
No current case law for South Dakota product and AI liability law
No current case law for South Dakota digital accessibility law
No current case law for South Dakota age gating law
No current case law for South Dakota reuse law
Reporting clocks that run here17 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 South Dakota 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 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.