In a law-heavy news roundup, Katie Cassel and I talk about New York’s dangerously prescriptive cybersecurity regs for banks and insurers. Maury Shenk and I uncover the seamy industrial politics behind the EU’s latest copyright and telecom proposals. The Sixth Circuit deepens a circuit split over standing and how much injury it takes to support a federal data breach lawsuit – and then, oddly, decides not to publish its opinion. Michael Vatis explains.

In other news, Michael notes that the CFTC has adopted its own very prescriptive cybersecurity testing rules. At least pen testers should be happy; their specialty is increasingly required by regulators. Katie hoses me down on the significance of the Ninth Circuit’s latest “failure to warn” decision for section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Good news for section 230, not so much for Match.com.

Finally, the FTC continues to vie for the title of federal agency with the least sense of moderation. The FTC is opposing a motion to stay in the LabMD case. Pending appeal, it wants to impose strict cybersecurity procedures on a business whose servers are probably stored in Mike Daugherty’s garage. As Winston Churchill said about nuclear weapons, at some point all you’re doing it making the rubble bounce.

As always, the Cyberlaw Podcast welcomes feedback. Send email to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com or leave a message at +1 202 862 5785.

Download the 130th episode (mp3).

Subscribe to the Cyberlaw Podcast here. We are also on iTunes, Pocket Casts, and Google Play (available for Android and Google Chrome)!

The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of the firm.