Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 10-1-910 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 10-1-910 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 10-1-910

TITLE 10 COMMERCE AND TRADE

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

ARTICLE 34 IDENTITY THEFT

10-1-910. Legislative findings.

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.

(Code 1981, §10-1-910, enacted by Ga. L. 2005, p. 851, § 1/SB 230.)

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).

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).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Identity Theft and Other Misuses of Credit and Debit Cards, 81 POF3d 113.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 10-1-910

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

...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

...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....
...Accordingly, we hereby disapprove Bradley Center to the extent that it created a general 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....
Copy

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

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 20, 2019

...which McConnell 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 v. Wessner, 250 Ga. 199, 201 (296 SE2d 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 that duty that causes harm to another....
...o an unreasonable 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....