O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-393.8 (2019)

Protection from disclosure of an individual’s social security number

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) 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, the term “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.

(b) 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:

(A) As part of an application or enrollment process; (B) To establish, amend, or terminate an account, contract, or policy; or (C) 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.

(c) 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.

(d) 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.

History

Code 1981, § 10-1-393.8, enacted by Ga. L. 2006, p. 486, § 1/SB 588; Ga. L. 2015, p. 1088, § 2/SB 148; Ga. L. 2024, p. 1052, § 2(14)/SB 448, effective July 1, 2024. Amendments. The 2024 amendment, effective July 1, 2024, part of an Act to revise, modern-

ize, and correct the Code, inserted “the term” following “section,” in paragraph (a)(1) and revised capitalization in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3).

SELLING/OTHER TRADE PRACTICES

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 2016–2023 · leading case: Mcconnell Et Al. v. Dep't of Labor, 787 S.E.2d 794 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mcconnell Et Al. v. Dep't of Labor, 787 S.E.2d 794 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 10× “5 In the GPIPA, the GeneralAssembly found, inter alia, that “[t]he privacy and financial security of individuals is increasingly at risk, due to the ever more widespread collection of personal information by both the private and public sectors[,]” that “[i] dentity theft is one…”

Mcconnell Et Al. v. Dep't of Labor., 814 S.E.2d 790 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 10× “In OCGA §§ 10-1-910, the General Assembly set out legislative findings underlying the Georgia Personal Identity Protection Act, OCGA §§ 10-1-910 through 10-1-915 (the "GPIPA"), enacted in 2005. 11 In the GPIPA, the General Assembly found, inter alia, that "[t]he privacy and…”

Dep't of Labor v. Mcconnell, 828 S.E.2d 352 (Ga. 2019). · cites it 6× “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 **816 that duty that causes harm to another.”

In re Equifax, Inc., 362 F. Supp. 3d 1295 (N.D. Ga. 2019). · cites it 2× “203 In McConnell III , the court concluded that part of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-393.8, "can not serve as the source of such a general duty to safeguard and protect the personal information of another.”

Collins v. Athens Orthopedic Clinic, P.a, 307 Ga. 555 (Ga. 2019). · cites it 2× “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)).”

Carlos Ramirez v. The Paradies Shops, LLC, 69 F.4th 1213 (11th Cir. 2023). “at 315-16 (noting that the “easier showing of injury” in cases “where the data exposure occurs as a result of an 3The Georgia Supreme Court also rejected McConnell’s argument that this duty arose under two Georgia statutes, O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-393.8 and 10-1-910, but neither is…”

In re Equifax, Inc., 371 F. Supp. 3d 1150 (N.D. Ga. 2019). · cites it 2× “191 In McConnell III , the court concluded that part of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-393.8, "can not serve as the source of such a general duty to safeguard and protect the personal information of another.”

Baker v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. (S.D. Ga. 2020). · cites it 6× “Thus, even if a jury could find that G4S’s conduct was negligent, it is irrelevant because, under McConnell, G4S did not have a duty to 4 Under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-393.8(a)(1), a “corporation shall not [p]ublicly post or publicly display in any manner an individual’s social security…”

Georgia Dep't of Labor v. Mcconnell (& Vice Versa), 305 Ga. 812 (Ga. 2019). · cites it 4× “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…”

Eustice v. Equifax Inc. (N.D. Ga. 2022). · cites it 2× “While the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision focused on the issue of injury, it “included an extended parenthetical explaining the specific holding of [ ]—namely that there was no duty under , nor under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-393.8 or O.C.G.A. § 10- 1-910.”

Joshpe v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC (N.D. Ga. 2022). · cites it 2× “While the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision focused on the issue of injury, it “included an extended parenthetical explaining the specific holding of [ ]—namely that there was no duty under , nor under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-393.8 or O.C.G.A. § 10- 1-910.”

Show all 21 citing cases →

— 10-1-393.8(a)(1) — 1 case

Baker v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. (S.D. Ga. 2020). “Thus, even if a jury could find that G4S’s conduct was negligent, it is irrelevant because, under McConnell, G4S did not have a duty to 4 Under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-393.8(a)(1), a “corporation shall not [p]ublicly post or publicly display in any manner an individual’s social security…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.