O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-910 (2019)

Legislative findings

✓ 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

The General Assembly finds and declares as follows:

(1) The 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;

(2) Credit card transactions, magazine subscriptions, real estate records, automobile registrations, consumer surveys, warranty registrations, credit reports, and internet websites are all sources of personal information and form the source material for identity thieves;

(3) Identity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes committed in this state. Criminals who steal personal information such as social security numbers use the information to open credit card accounts, write bad checks, buy cars, purchase property, and commit other financial crimes with other people’s identities;

(4) Implementation of technology security plans and security software as part of an information security policy may provide protection to consumers and the general public from identity thieves;

(5) Information brokers should clearly define the standards for authorized users of its data so that a breach by an unauthorized user is easily identifiable;

(6) Identity theft is costly to the marketplace and to consumers; and

(7) Victims of identity theft must act quickly to minimize the damage; therefore, expeditious notification of unauthorized acquisition and possible misuse of a person’s personal information is imperative.

History

Code 1981, § 10-1-910, enacted by Ga. L. 2005, p. 851, § 1/SB 230; Ga. L. 2024, p. 1052, § 2(32)/SB 448, effective July 1, 2024.

Amendments. The 2024 amendment, effective July 1, 2024, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, revised capitalization in paragraph (2).

SELLING/OTHER TRADE PRACTICES

Annotations

Law reviews. For article on 2005 enactment of this article, see 22 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1 (2005). For article, “The Growing Threat of Identity Theft and Its Implications for

Employers,” see 11 Ga. St. B. J. 27 (No. 6, 2006). For note, “Cybersecurity on my Mind: Protecting Georgia Consumers from Data Breaches,” see 51 Ga. L. Rev. 265 (2016).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. Proof of Facts. Identity Theft and Other Misuses of Credit and Debit Cards, 81 POF3d 113.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 2016–2024 · 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 8× “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 8× “11 In the GPIPA, the General Assembly 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…”

Dep't of Labor v. Mcconnell, 828 S.E.2d 352 (Ga. 2019). · cites it 4× “Rather, the statute recites a series of legislative findings about the vulnerability of personal information and the risk of identity theft.”

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

Eustice v. Equifax Inc. (N.D. Ga. 2022). · cites it 4× “And it held that two Georgia statutes—O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-910 and 10-1-393.8—at most created a duty to refrain from intentional, but not negligent, disclosures of social security numbers.”

Joshpe v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC (N.D. Ga. 2022). · cites it 4× “And it held that two Georgia statutes—O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-910 and 10-1-393.8—at most created a duty to refrain from intentional, but not negligent, disclosures of social security numbers.”

Hutchinson v. Equifax, Inc. (N.D. Ga. 2022). · cites it 4× “And it held that two Georgia statutes—O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-910 and 10-1-393.8—at most created a duty to refrain from intentional, but not negligent, disclosures of social security numbers.”

Audella Patterson v. Equifax, Inc. (N.D. Ga. 2022). · cites it 4× “And it held that two Georgia statutes—O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-910 and 10-1-393.8—at most created a duty to refrain from intentional, but not negligent, disclosures of social security numbers.”

Adams v. Equifax, Inc. (N.D. Ga. 2022). · cites it 4× “And it held that two Georgia statutes—O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-910 and 10-1-393.8—at most created a duty to refrain from intentional, but not negligent, disclosures of social security numbers.”

Khalaf v. Equifax Inc. (N.D. Ga. 2022). · cites it 4× “And it held that two Georgia statutes—O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-910 and 10-1-393.8—at most created a duty to refrain from intentional, but not negligent, disclosures of social security numbers.”

Lee v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC (N.D. Ga. 2022). · cites it 4× “And it held that two Georgia statutes—O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-910 and 10-1-393.8—at most created a duty to refrain from intentional, but not negligent, disclosures of social security numbers.”

Show all 19 citing cases →

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.