Substitute notices are seen in other scenarios. In some states, if the cost of notifying individuals exceeds a certain threshold, such as $5,000 or the impact to 1,000 residents (as seen in Maine and New Hampshire) or $10,000 (as in Vermont), organizations can issue only a broad website notice instead of appropriately notifying each impacted individual, undermining the intention of individualized notice and proper remediation. Furthermore, phrases like “without unreasonable delay” provide legal cover for prolonged inaction, while individuals’ personal data is weaponized.
Those legacy standards mean that today, by the time consumers are notified, their information is often long sold on the dark web and exploited by malicious actors. This delay exacerbates the damage.
Notification timelines that stretch weeks or even months after an incident leave consumers unable to take protective measures, such as freezing their credit or updating account credentials, before harm is done. The longer the delay, the wider the opportunity for bad actors to propagate further breaches, creating cascading impacts that jeopardize public trust. Additionally, generational habits have shifted—while older generations were more diligent in balancing checkbooks and verifying credit charges, younger generations may rely more on automated financial tools and may not closely monitor their accounts. This shift can lead to thefts going unnoticed for longer periods, making timely breach notifications even more critical.
The loose regulatory environment also creates fertile ground for unethical practices, such as vendors holding client data hostage. This scenario plays out when vendors demand additional fees to extract, analyze, or release the data required to notify affected individuals. The absence of stringent requirements fuels a culture of irresponsibility. From an Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) perspective, this laissez-faire approach fails the “Social” component. Protecting citizens’ data from misuse and exploitation is an essential aspect of corporate responsibility. Companies that prioritize profits over proactive incident response undermine the societal contract that businesses should uphold.
An Unfair System with Misaligned Accountability
The current regulatory landscape disproportionately shields organizations at the expense of affected individuals. Companies can continue business as usual with minimal repercussions, even after egregious breaches. This imbalance perpetuates a system where there is no urgency to enhance response capabilities or adopt better data protection practices. Such lax regulations foster complacency and weaken consumer trust.
Individuals whose data is compromised often bear the brunt of the aftermath—financial loss, identity theft, and emotional distress—while breached organizations face only minor consequences.
Regulatory ambiguity creates an uneven playing field, with some organizations investing in robust incident response while others exploit loopholes to avoid accountability.
Victims of data breaches deserve not only transparency but also timely restitution. However, current frameworks rarely include meaningful financial penalties or reparations for those impacted.
Public perception also plays a critical role. The lack of accountability in data breach cases can erode confidence in both private institutions and public regulatory bodies. When consumers see repeated breaches go largely unpunished, it fuels skepticism about the effectiveness of data protection laws and underscores the urgent need for stronger enforcement and transparency.
Additionally, this environment enables breached organizations to portray delays as acceptable under vague legal definitions, framing inaction as ‘best efforts’ rather than negligence. This practice perpetuates a lack of urgency and obstructs efforts to modernize the response process.
Why Change Is Necessary—and Possible
The technology needed to support rapid and accurate breach response already exists. Data mining capabilities have evolved to the point where delays in breach notification are no longer justifiable. The lack of regulatory mandates is not a matter of feasibility—it is a matter of will.
Other nations have moved far beyond the U.S. in this regard. Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) mandates breach notifications within 72 hours of detection, setting a global standard for urgency and accountability. Similarly, the Philippines’ Data Privacy Act requires notification within 72 hours, and China’s Personal Information Protection Law enforces strict timelines, illustrating that the U.S. lags behind not only Europe but other global jurisdictions as well.
This is not a case of early adoption but rather one of lagging behind a global consensus.
Organizations now have access to tools capable of swiftly extracting, analyzing, and reporting on breached data. Solutions exist to pinpoint exposed information and determine the extent of exfiltration within mere hours. Given these capabilities, it is indefensible to grant companies leeway under the guise of “complexity” or “volume of data.”
A Call for Modernized Regulations
The path forward requires a regulatory overhaul to ensure that data breach notification timelines reflect today’s technological reality. U.S. lawmakers must set clearer, binding timelines for notifying affected parties—timelines that align with the current speed and accuracy of data mining advancements. Recent public hearings, such as those involving UHG, included testimony executives and comments from senators calling for stronger security measures. During this hearing, Representative Bob Latta of Ohio emphasized, “We must do better to protect and defend against cyberattacks.” Failure to act perpetuates a system that is naïve at best and intentionally harmful at worst.
However, months later, there has been little public follow-up from Capitol Hill, highlighting the lack of sustained regulatory action.
By closing this regulatory gap, the U.S. can foster greater accountability and ensure that organizations act swiftly and transparently in the aftermath of a data breach. Protecting PII is not just a regulatory obligation—it is a public trust. The time for change is long overdue.
