Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 10-1-393.8 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 10 COMMERCE AND TRADE

Section 1. Selling and Other Trade Practices, 10-1-1 through 10-1-915.

ARTICLE 15 DECEPTIVE OR UNFAIR PRACTICES

10-1-393.8. Protection from disclosure of an individual's social security number.

  1. Except as otherwise provided in this Code section, a person, firm, or corporation shall not:
    1. Publicly post or publicly display in any manner an individual's social security number. As used in this Code section, "publicly post" or "publicly display" means to intentionally communicate or otherwise make available to the general public;
    2. Require an individual to transmit his or her social security number over the Internet, unless the connection is secure or the social security number is encrypted; or
    3. Require an individual to use his or her social security number to access an Internet website, unless a password or unique personal identification number or other authentication device is also required to access the Internet website.
  2. This Code section shall not apply to:
    1. The collection, release, or use of an individual's social security number as required by state or federal law;
    2. The inclusion of an individual's social security number in an application, form, or document sent by mail, electronically transmitted, or transmitted by facsimile:
      1. As part of an application or enrollment process;
      2. To establish, amend, or terminate an account, contract, or policy; or
      3. To confirm the accuracy of the individual's social security number;
    3. The use of an individual's social security number for internal verification or administrative purposes; or
    4. An interactive computer service provider's or a telecommunications provider's transmission or routing of, or intermediate temporary storage or caching of, an individual's social security number.
  3. This Code section shall not impose a duty on an interactive computer service provider or a telecommunications provider actively to monitor its service or to affirmatively seek evidence of the transmission of social security numbers on its service.
  4. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Code section, the clerks of superior court of this state and the Georgia Superior Court Clerks' Cooperative Authority shall be held harmless for filing, publicly posting, or publicly displaying any document containing an individual's social security number that the clerk is otherwise required by law to file, publicly post, or publicly display for public inspection.

(Code 1981, §10-1-393.8, enacted by Ga. L. 2006, p. 486, § 1/SB 588; Ga. L. 2015, p. 1088, § 2/SB 148.)

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 2015, p. 1088, § 2/SB 148, effective July 1, 2015, reenacted this Code section without change.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Tort action for wrongful disclosure of private information dismissed for failure to state cause of action.

- Dismissal of the plaintiff's cause of action against a state agency for disclosure of private information in violation of the Georgia Personal Identity Protection Act (GPIPA), O.C.G.A. § 10-1-910 et seq., was affirmed for failure to state a claim because the GPIPA did not impose any standard of conduct in implementing and maintaining data security practices; thus, it could not serve as the source of a statutory duty to safeguard personal information. McConnell v. Department of Labor, 337 Ga. App. 457, 787 S.E.2d 794 (2016).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 10-1-393.8

Total Results: 3  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Collins v. Athens Orthopedic Clinic, P.a, 307 Ga. 555 (Ga. 2019).

Cited 31 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Dec 23, 2019

...to plead facts rendering plausible their allegation that identity thieves obtained sensitive information as a result of theft of defendant’s computers, as opposed to from a third party). 17 under either OCGA § 10-1-393.8, OCGA § 10-1-910, or purported common law duty “to all the world not to subject others to an unreasonable risk of harm” — to protect his personal information from inadvertent, negligent disclosure (citation and punctuation omitted))....
Copy

Dep't of Labor v. Mcconnell, 828 S.E.2d 352 (Ga. 2019).

Cited 25 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 20, 2019 | 305 Ga. 812

...l argues is based on a purported common law duty "to all the world not to subject [others] to an unreasonable risk of harm," Bradley Center, Inc. v. Wessner , 250 Ga. 199, 201, 296 S.E.2d 693 (1982) (opinion of Gregory, J.), and two statutes, OCGA §§ 10-1-393.8 and 10-1-910. In Bradley Center , the lead opinion, which only two Justices joined, said that everyone owes a general duty not to subject others to an "unreasonable risk of harm" and may be liable for any breach of **816that duty that causes harm to another....
...l legal duty "to all the world not to subject [others] to an unreasonable risk of harm." 250 Ga. at 201, 296 S.E.2d 693.4 We therefore reject McConnell's reliance upon Bradley Center . McConnell also argues that two statutes, OCGA §§ 10-1-910 and 10-1-393.8, created a legal duty on the part of the Department to safeguard his and the other proposed class members' personal information....
...But OCGA § 10-1-910 does not explicitly establish any duty, nor does it prohibit or require any conduct at all. Rather, the statute recites a series of legislative findings about the vulnerability of personal information and the risk of identity theft. And while OCGA § 10-1-393.8 (a) (1) says that no "person, firm, or corporation" shall "[p]ublicly post or publicly display in any manner an individual's social security number," the statute then immediately adds, "As used in this Code section, 'publicly post' or 'publicly display' means to intentionally communicate or otherwise make available to the general public." The complaint alleged only a negligent disclosure, not an intentional one. Even assuming that OCGA § 10-1-393.8 (a) (1) creates a duty enforceable in tort to refrain from intentionally disclosing social security numbers, McConnell has not shown that the Department owed him or the other proposed class members a duty to protect their information against negligent disclosure....
Copy

Georgia Dep't of Labor v. Mcconnell (& Vice Versa), 305 Ga. 812 (Ga. 2019).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 20, 2019

...risk of harm.” 250 Ga. at 201.4 We therefore reject McConnell’s reliance upon 4 Court of Appeals cases relying on Bradley Center’s language are Bradley Center. McConnell also argues that two statutes, OCGA §§ 10-1-910 and 10-1-393.8, created a legal duty on the part of the Department to safeguard his and the other proposed class members’ personal information....
...But OCGA § 10-1-910 does not explicitly establish any duty, nor does it prohibit or require any conduct at all. Rather, the statute recites a series of legislative findings about the vulnerability of personal information and the risk of identity theft. And while OCGA § 10-1-393.8 (a) (1) says that no “person, firm, or corporation” shall “[p]ublicly post or publicly display in any manner an individual’s social security number,” the statute then immediately adds, “As used in this Code section, ‘publicly post’ or ‘publicly display’ means to intentionally communicate or otherwise make available to the general public.” The complaint alleged only a negligent disclosure, not an intentional one. Even assuming that OCGA § 10-1-393.8 (a) (1) creates a duty enforceable in tort to overruled, see, e.g., Lowry v....