The North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act, codified in Chapter 75 of the North Carolina General Statutes, specifically addresses the obligations of businesses that own or license personal information of North Carolina residents. Section 75-63 outlines the requirements for data security and breach notification. When a breach of the security of the system occurs, meaning unauthorized acquisition of computerized personal information that compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of personal information, the entity must conduct a reasonable and prompt investigation to determine the nature and scope of the breach. If the investigation reveals that the personal information of North Carolina residents has been acquired or reasonably believed to have been acquired by an unauthorized person, the entity must provide notification to affected residents. The Act specifies that notification must be made without unreasonable delay, consistent with the legitimate needs of law enforcement or with measures necessary to restore the integrity of the system. The Act does not mandate a specific timeframe for notification, but rather requires it to be without unreasonable delay. Furthermore, the Act specifies exceptions to the notification requirement, such as when the acquisition is in good faith by an employee or agent of the entity for the purposes of the entity, or when the information is encrypted and the encryption key has not been acquired. The question asks about the core obligation upon discovery of a breach of computerized personal information of North Carolina residents, which is to conduct an investigation and, if confirmed, provide notification. This aligns with the general principles of data protection and breach response found in the Act.

The North Carolina Consumer Privacy Act (NCCPA) grants consumers the right to opt-out of the sale of their personal information. A “sale” under the NCCPA is broadly defined and includes the exchange of personal information for monetary consideration or other valuable consideration. However, the NCCPA provides specific exceptions to this definition. One such exception is when a business discloses personal information to a third party for the sole purpose of providing a product or service that the consumer has requested or purchased. Another exception applies when the disclosure is to a processor acting on behalf of the controller for the controller’s business purposes, provided that the processor agrees not to sell the personal information and adheres to specific contractual obligations. Furthermore, disclosures made to comply with legal obligations or to assist with security, fraud prevention, or system maintenance are also generally excluded from the definition of “sale.” In the scenario presented, the North Carolina based retail company, “Carolina Threads,” shares customer purchase history with a marketing analytics firm, “Insight Analytics,” in exchange for detailed demographic reports that help Carolina Threads refine its product offerings. This exchange constitutes a sale of personal information because valuable consideration (detailed demographic reports) is exchanged for personal information (customer purchase history), and it does not fall under any of the explicit exceptions. The disclosure is not for the purpose of providing a requested product or service directly to the consumer, nor is Insight Analytics acting solely as a processor for Carolina Threads’ direct business purposes in a manner that would be exempt from the definition of sale under the NCCPA. The intent of the exchange is to gain insights for future business strategy, which goes beyond merely fulfilling an existing consumer request. Therefore, Carolina Threads must provide consumers with the right to opt-out of this data sharing practice.

The North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act, codified in Chapter 75C of the North Carolina General Statutes, outlines specific requirements for businesses that collect, store, or transmit personal identifying information. A key provision of this act pertains to the duty of care owed by entities in safeguarding such information. When a data breach occurs, the act generally requires entities to notify affected individuals, state officials, and sometimes credit reporting agencies, provided certain thresholds are met. The standard of care expected is that of a reasonable person or entity under similar circumstances. However, the act does not mandate a specific encryption algorithm or a particular security framework as the sole means of compliance. Instead, it focuses on the reasonableness of the security measures implemented. In this scenario, the company’s failure to implement any security measures beyond basic password protection, which is demonstrably insufficient in preventing unauthorized access to sensitive health data, falls below the reasonable standard of care required by North Carolina law. The act emphasizes proactive measures to prevent breaches. Therefore, a company that fails to implement reasonable security protocols, such as encryption for sensitive data like health records, would likely be found to have breached its duty of care under North Carolina’s identity theft protection statutes. The notification requirements are triggered by a breach of the security of the system, meaning unauthorized acquisition of personal identifying information. The lack of encryption for sensitive health data, coupled with a weak password-only protection, directly contributes to the risk of such unauthorized acquisition.

The North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act, codified in Chapter 75 of the North Carolina General Statutes, specifically Article 2A, outlines requirements for businesses that handle personal identifying information. When a breach of unencrypted personal identifying information occurs, businesses are generally required to notify affected North Carolina residents. The Act defines “personal identifying information” broadly to include names, social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, and financial account numbers. The notification must be made without unreasonable delay, and in the most expedient time possible, but no later than 45 days after the discovery of the breach. The notification must include a description of the incident, the type of information compromised, steps the individual can take to protect themselves, and contact information for the business. The Act also specifies that if the breach affects more than 1,000 North Carolina residents, the business must also notify the North Carolina Attorney General. While there are exceptions, such as when the information is encrypted, the scenario describes unencrypted data. The prompt asks about the notification requirement to the Attorney General, which is triggered by a breach affecting a significant number of residents. The threshold for this specific requirement is more than 1,000 North Carolina residents. Therefore, if a business discovers a breach of unencrypted personal identifying information affecting 1,250 North Carolina residents, it must notify the North Carolina Attorney General.

The scenario involves a North Carolina-based healthcare provider, “Carolina Health Services,” which is subject to both federal HIPAA regulations and North Carolina’s specific privacy laws. The provider is considering a new data analytics project utilizing de-identified patient data. De-identification, under HIPAA’s Privacy Rule, requires the removal of 18 specific identifiers, or the data can be certified as de-identified by a qualified statistician. North Carolina law, while generally aligning with federal standards, may have nuances or additional requirements for state-level data protection, particularly concerning the secondary use of health information for research or commercial purposes. The question probes the provider’s understanding of the legal framework governing the use of such data, focusing on the necessity of compliance with both federal and state mandates. The core principle is that de-identification is a process to mitigate privacy risks, but it does not entirely absolve entities from all data protection obligations, especially when considering the specific provisions of North Carolina law that might extend protections beyond federal minimums or govern the re-identification potential of data, even if initially de-identified according to federal standards. The correct answer reflects the layered regulatory environment, emphasizing the ongoing responsibility to ensure data handling practices align with all applicable laws, including any specific requirements for secondary data use or data broker regulations that might exist in North Carolina. The analysis would involve understanding that while HIPAA provides a baseline, state laws can impose stricter or additional requirements. For instance, if North Carolina has specific consent requirements for secondary data use or limitations on how de-identified data can be used or shared, these would need to be addressed. The provider must navigate this complex interplay to ensure their project is compliant.

The North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act, specifically referencing the provisions concerning data breach notification, outlines specific timelines and requirements for businesses. When a breach of personal information occurs, the Act mandates that the notification be made “without unreasonable delay.” While the Act does not specify a precise number of days for all situations, it emphasizes promptness. For a covered entity, such as a financial institution or a company that handles sensitive consumer data, the notification to affected individuals and, in certain circumstances, to the North Carolina Attorney General, must be timely. The concept of “without unreasonable delay” is a key interpretive standard. It implies that a business must act as quickly as possible to inform individuals and relevant authorities once it has confirmed that a breach has occurred and has identified the affected personal information. This timeframe is crucial for allowing individuals to take steps to protect themselves from identity theft or fraud. Factors such as the nature of the breach, the sensitivity of the data compromised, and the steps needed to secure the data and systems are considered when determining what constitutes “unreasonable delay.” The Act’s intent is to empower consumers with the information they need to mitigate potential harm.

The North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act, codified in Chapter 75D of the North Carolina General Statutes, outlines specific requirements for businesses that collect and maintain personal identifying information. A key aspect of this act concerns data security breach notification procedures. When a breach of the security of a system is discovered, an entity must conduct a reasonable investigation to determine the scope of the breach and identify the affected individuals. If the investigation reveals that unauthorized acquisition of personal identifying information has occurred, the entity must provide notification to affected North Carolina residents without unreasonable delay. The act defines “personal identifying information” broadly to include names, social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, financial account numbers, and other data that, alone or in combination, can be used to identify an individual. The notification must be provided in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay, generally understood to be within 45 days of discovery of the breach, unless a longer period is required for specific law enforcement investigations. The notification must include specific content, such as a description of the incident, the types of information compromised, steps individuals can take to protect themselves, and contact information for the entity. The purpose of these provisions is to empower individuals to take protective measures against identity theft and financial fraud. The act also permits alternative notification methods if direct notification is not feasible, such as posting a conspicuous notice on the entity’s website or notifying statewide media.

The North Carolina Consumer Privacy Act (NCCPA) grants consumers the right to opt out of the sale of their personal information. A “sale” under the NCCPA is broadly defined to include any exchange of personal information for monetary or other valuable consideration. This definition is crucial for understanding the scope of consumer rights. When a business shares personal information with a third party for targeted advertising purposes, and that third party provides compensation, either directly or indirectly, this constitutes a sale. For instance, if a North Carolina resident’s browsing history, collected by a website operator, is shared with an advertising network in exchange for the network’s services or a fee, this transaction qualifies as a sale under the NCCPA. The consumer has the right to direct the business not to sell their personal information. Businesses must honor these opt-out requests, which often involves maintaining a clear and accessible mechanism for consumers to exercise this right. This includes processing opt-out requests submitted through authorized agents. The NCCPA aims to provide consumers with greater control over how their data is disseminated and monetized by businesses.

The scenario describes a North Carolina-based healthcare provider, “Carolina Health Solutions,” that uses an AI-powered diagnostic tool to analyze patient medical images. This tool was developed by a third-party vendor, “MediTech Innovations,” which is based in California. The AI tool is trained on a vast dataset, and while MediTech Innovations states that the data used for training was de-identified, the specific methodology for de-identification is not fully disclosed. Carolina Health Solutions is concerned about potential privacy risks associated with this AI tool, particularly regarding the possibility of re-identification of patients whose data might have been indirectly included in the training set, or if the AI itself could inadvertently generate or infer sensitive personal health information. North Carolina’s primary privacy legislation, the North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act (NCITPA), codified in Chapter 75 of the North Carolina General Statutes, addresses the protection of personal information. While the NCITPA primarily focuses on safeguarding Social Security numbers and other specific identifiers against identity theft and requires reasonable security measures, its scope can be interpreted to encompass the protection of sensitive health information when linked to identifiable data. More broadly, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) governs the privacy and security of Protected Health Information (PHI) for covered entities, which includes healthcare providers like Carolina Health Solutions. Even though MediTech Innovations might not be a covered entity under HIPAA, Carolina Health Solutions, as a covered entity, has a responsibility to ensure its business associates (like MediTech Innovations, if applicable) comply with HIPAA regulations or that the services provided do not compromise the privacy of PHI. The question probes the most appropriate legal framework for Carolina Health Solutions to consider when evaluating the privacy implications of using this AI diagnostic tool. Given that the provider is in North Carolina and deals with patient health information, both state and federal laws are relevant. However, the direct use of patient data by the healthcare provider for diagnostic purposes, and the potential for the AI to process or infer sensitive information, brings federal health privacy regulations to the forefront. The NCITPA, while important for general data protection, is less specific to the nuances of health data processing by AI compared to HIPAA, which directly addresses the privacy and security of health information. The scenario doesn’t involve a direct breach of an NCITPA-defined identifier in the traditional sense of identity theft, but rather a potential privacy risk stemming from the processing of health data by an AI. Therefore, the most comprehensive and directly applicable legal framework to assess the privacy risks of using an AI tool for patient diagnosis, especially concerning the potential for re-identification or inference of sensitive health data, is HIPAA, as it governs the handling of PHI by covered entities. The provider must ensure that its use of the AI tool and its relationship with the vendor do not violate HIPAA’s Privacy and Security Rules, which include requirements for de-identification of data and safeguarding PHI.

The scenario describes a North Carolina-based healthcare provider, “Carolina Medical Group,” that utilizes a cloud-based electronic health record (EHR) system. This system stores sensitive patient information, including diagnoses, treatment plans, and personal identifiers. The group enters into a business associate agreement (BAA) with a third-party vendor, “HealthData Solutions,” which provides cloud storage and data analytics services for the EHR. HealthData Solutions is headquartered in California but processes data for clients nationwide, including Carolina Medical Group. The question asks about the primary legal framework governing the protection of patient data processed by HealthData Solutions in this context. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is the foundational federal law that establishes national standards for protecting sensitive patient health information from being disclosed or accessed without the patient’s consent or knowledge. Specifically, the HIPAA Privacy Rule and Security Rule set forth requirements for covered entities (like healthcare providers) and their business associates (like HealthData Solutions) to safeguard protected health information (PHI). A business associate agreement is a contract required by HIPAA between a covered entity and a business associate, outlining the specific ways the business associate will protect PHI. While North Carolina may have its own state-level data privacy laws, such as the North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act or potentially other consumer data privacy statutes, HIPAA’s comprehensive regulations are the primary and overarching legal framework governing the handling of PHI by healthcare providers and their business associates in the United States, regardless of the specific state of operation for the business associate, as long as PHI is involved. Therefore, HIPAA is the most directly applicable and significant law in this scenario.

The scenario describes a North Carolina-based healthcare provider, “Carolina Health Systems,” that collects patient data. The question probes the provider’s obligations under North Carolina privacy law, specifically concerning the sharing of de-identified data for research purposes. North Carolina’s primary data privacy statute, the North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act (NCITPA), codified in Chapter 75 of the North Carolina General Statutes, focuses on protecting personal information and preventing identity theft. While the NCITPA does not explicitly define “de-identified data” in the same granular detail as some federal laws like HIPAA, its general principles of data protection and unauthorized disclosure are relevant. For research purposes, the critical factor in sharing data without explicit patient consent under North Carolina law, particularly when considering the spirit of the NCITPA and general privacy principles, is ensuring the data is truly de-identified to a degree that it cannot reasonably be used to identify an individual. This involves removing direct identifiers and implementing measures to prevent re-identification. The Act mandates reasonable security procedures to protect personal information. When data is shared for research, even if de-identified, the obligation to protect against re-identification remains a key consideration. The concept of “publicly available information” is not directly applicable here as the data originates from patient records. The existence of a specific data breach notification requirement is triggered by a breach, not by the standard sharing of de-identified data. Therefore, the most accurate and legally sound approach for Carolina Health Systems, to ensure compliance with the overarching privacy principles in North Carolina, is to ensure the data is de-identified in accordance with generally accepted standards that prevent re-identification, thereby minimizing the risk of privacy violations.

North Carolina’s Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) applies to operators of websites or online services directed to children under 13 years of age, or operators who have actual knowledge that they are collecting personal information from a child under 13. The Act requires that such operators provide notice to parents and obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children. A critical aspect of COPPA compliance is the mechanism for obtaining verifiable parental consent. While direct parental consent is the gold standard, COPPA allows for alternative methods that provide a reasonable assurance of parental authorization. These alternatives are designed to be robust enough to ensure that the person providing consent is indeed the parent or guardian. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which enforces COPPA, has provided guidance on acceptable methods. These methods include requiring a signed consent form, using a toll-free telephone number, or requiring a credit card or other established payment method to verify the parent’s identity. Each of these methods is intended to create a record that can be reviewed and audited, demonstrating a good-faith effort to obtain parental consent. The key is that the method must be reasonably calculated to ensure that the person giving consent is the parent or guardian. The question asks about a scenario where an operator uses a simple email confirmation from a user who claims to be a parent. This method lacks the necessary safeguards to ensure the sender is actually the parent, making it insufficient under COPPA’s verifiable parental consent requirements. Therefore, this approach would not meet the legal standard for obtaining consent.

The North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act (NC ITPA), codified in Chapter 75 of the North Carolina General Statutes, specifically addresses the obligations of entities that maintain, own, or license computerized data that includes a North Carolina resident’s social security number. The Act requires these entities to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices, which must be appropriate to the nature and scope of the business and the nature and sensitivity of the personal information collected. This is a proactive measure to prevent unauthorized access and subsequent identity theft. The Act does not mandate a specific timeline for data breach notification to affected individuals; instead, it requires notification without unreasonable delay and in any event no later than 60 days after the discovery of a breach. The Act also does not explicitly require the establishment of a dedicated data protection officer or the creation of a data privacy impact assessment for all data processing activities, although these are often considered best practices in broader data protection frameworks. The core obligation is the implementation of reasonable security measures and timely notification upon discovery of a breach.

The North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act (NC ITPA), codified in Chapter 75 of the North Carolina General Statutes, specifically addresses the obligations of businesses that own or license the personal information of North Carolina residents. While the Act does not mandate a specific percentage for data breach notification, it establishes a framework for when and how such notifications must occur. The core trigger for notification is the compromise of personal information, defined broadly to include names, social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, financial account numbers, and medical information. The Act requires businesses to conduct a reasonable investigation to determine the nature and scope of the breach and to notify affected North Carolina residents without unreasonable delay. This notification must include specific content, such as a description of the incident, the types of information involved, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. The Act also outlines requirements for notifying credit reporting agencies and the Attorney General under certain circumstances. The absence of a specific monetary threshold or percentage for notification means that any unauthorized acquisition or access that compromises personal information necessitates a response, emphasizing a proactive and protective stance on consumer data security within North Carolina. The focus is on the compromise of sensitive data, not on the proportion of data compromised relative to the total dataset.

The North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act, codified in Chapter 75, Article 21 of the North Carolina General Statutes, outlines specific requirements for data security and breach notification. For entities that own or license personal information of North Carolina residents, the act mandates the implementation of reasonable security procedures and practices. When a breach of the security of the system is discovered, the entity must provide notice to affected North Carolina residents without unreasonable delay. The definition of “personal information” under the act includes a first name or first initial and last name in combination with any one or more of the following data elements, when the data elements are not encrypted, or when the unencrypted data element is accessed in conjunction with the name: Social Security number, driver’s license number, state identification card number, account number, credit or debit card number, or financial institution account number. The act also specifies the content of the notification, which must include a description of the incident, the type of information involved, the steps individuals can take to protect themselves, and contact information for the entity. It also requires notification to the Attorney General if the breach affects more than 1,000 North Carolina residents. The core principle is to ensure that entities holding sensitive personal information take proactive steps to protect it and to promptly inform individuals if that information is compromised. The act’s focus is on the *discovery* of a breach and the subsequent obligation to notify, rather than on pre-breach risk assessments, though reasonable security measures are a prerequisite. The question tests the understanding of when the notification obligation is triggered under North Carolina law.

The scenario involves a North Carolina-based healthcare provider, “Carolina Health Systems,” that collects patient data. The question focuses on the implications of a data breach under North Carolina’s specific privacy laws, particularly concerning the notification requirements. North Carolina General Statute § 75-82, the state’s data breach notification law, mandates specific actions when a breach of computerized personal information occurs. This statute requires notification to affected individuals and, in certain circumstances, to the North Carolina Attorney General. The law defines “personal information” broadly and outlines what constitutes a “breach.” The critical aspect here is the timeframe for notification, which is “without unreasonable delay” and no later than 45 days after discovery of the breach. The law also specifies the content of the notification, which must include a description of the incident, the type of information compromised, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. The statute does not explicitly require notification to a federal agency unless other federal laws mandate it. Therefore, the primary legal obligation under North Carolina law for Carolina Health Systems, assuming the breach meets the statutory definition, is to notify affected North Carolina residents and potentially the North Carolina Attorney General. Federal laws like HIPAA might impose additional notification requirements, but the question specifically asks about North Carolina law. The scenario does not provide details that would trigger specific exceptions or alternative notification methods under North Carolina law, such as if the breach affects fewer than 1,000 residents, which would still necessitate notification. The absence of a federal mandate means the state law dictates the primary compliance path.

The North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act, specifically referencing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 and related provisions concerning unfair and deceptive trade practices and data security, mandates that businesses take reasonable steps to protect the personal information of North Carolina residents. While the Act does not prescribe a single, universally mandated encryption standard, it emphasizes the concept of “reasonable security.” This means that the measures taken must be appropriate to the nature and scope of the personal information collected and the potential harm that could result from a breach. For sensitive data like Social Security numbers or financial account information, a higher standard of care is generally expected. The choice of encryption algorithm, key management practices, and the implementation of access controls are all critical components of a reasonable security program. The Act does not mandate specific algorithms like AES-256, but rather the *outcome* of robust protection. Therefore, implementing a widely accepted and strong encryption standard, such as AES with a key length of 256 bits, coupled with secure key management and access controls, would be considered a reasonable measure to safeguard sensitive personal information under North Carolina law. The scenario describes a company that has implemented such measures, demonstrating a commitment to reasonable security practices.

The North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act, specifically focusing on Section 75-114, outlines the obligations of entities that collect and maintain personal identifying information. When a breach of this information occurs, the Act mandates specific notification procedures. The Act requires notification to affected North Carolina residents and, in certain circumstances, to the Attorney General’s office. The definition of a “breach of the security of the system” under North Carolina law is crucial here. It refers to unauthorized acquisition of computerized personal identifying information that compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of the personal identifying information. The Act does not mandate a specific waiting period before notification can occur, but rather specifies that notification must be made “without unreasonable delay.” The determination of what constitutes “unreasonable delay” depends on the specific circumstances of the breach and the potential for harm to consumers. The Act also specifies the content of the notification, which must include a description of the incident, the type of information involved, and steps consumers can take to protect themselves. While the Act provides a framework, the interpretation and application of “unreasonable delay” can be complex, often requiring a risk-based assessment by the entity experiencing the breach. The core principle is to inform consumers promptly to mitigate potential harm.

The North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act, codified in Chapter 75D of the North Carolina General Statutes, outlines specific requirements for businesses that collect and maintain personal information of North Carolina residents. A key provision of this act pertains to the notification of a data breach. When a breach of the security of the system is discovered, the entity must conduct a reasonable investigation to determine the nature and scope of the breach. If the investigation reveals that the personal information of a North Carolina resident was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person, the entity must provide notification to affected residents. This notification must be made without unreasonable delay, but in no event later than 45 days after the discovery of the breach, unless a longer period is required by federal law or is necessary for the entity to determine the scope of the breach and the affected residents. The notification must include specific content, such as a description of the incident, the types of personal information involved, and steps affected individuals can take to protect themselves. The Act also allows for substitute notification if the cost of providing individual notice exceeds a certain threshold or if there are insufficient contact details for a significant number of residents. This substitute notification can include conspicuous posting on the entity’s website or notification to statewide media. The core principle is to inform affected individuals promptly and comprehensively to mitigate potential harm from identity theft or fraud.

The scenario involves a North Carolina-based healthcare provider, “Carolina Health Solutions,” which utilizes a cloud-based electronic health record (EHR) system. This system stores sensitive Protected Health Information (PHI) of North Carolina residents. The provider contracts with a third-party vendor, “CloudSecure Inc.,” also based in North Carolina, to manage the cloud infrastructure. CloudSecure Inc. has experienced a data breach, exposing a significant volume of PHI. The North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act, specifically NCGS § 75-60 et seq., mandates that entities that own or license personal identifying information of North Carolina residents must implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices. When a breach occurs, the law requires notification to affected individuals and the North Carolina Attorney General. The Act defines “personal identifying information” broadly, including health information when linked with other identifiers. In this case, Carolina Health Solutions, as the entity collecting and storing the PHI, is responsible for ensuring the security of that data, even when processed by a third party. The breach at CloudSecure Inc. constitutes a failure of the security procedures for which Carolina Health Solutions is ultimately accountable under the Act. Therefore, Carolina Health Solutions must provide notification to affected North Carolina residents and the North Carolina Attorney General regarding the breach of their PHI, as this falls under the purview of personal identifying information protected by the Act. The Act’s provisions on reasonable security and breach notification are triggered by the unauthorized acquisition of personal identifying information, irrespective of whether the breach occurred directly at the primary entity or with a service provider. The focus is on the safeguarding of North Carolina residents’ data.

The North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act (NC ITPA), codified in Chapter 75 of the North Carolina General Statutes, specifically § 75-60 et seq., outlines requirements for data security and breach notification. When a breach of the security of the system is discovered, a person or business that conducts business in North Carolina and owns or licenses computerized data that includes personal information must provide notice to affected North Carolina residents. The definition of “personal information” under the NC ITPA includes a Social Security number, driver’s license number, or state identification card number, or an account number, credit or debit card number, in combination with any required security code, access code, or password that would permit access to the individual’s financial account. The act requires notification without unreasonable delay and in the most expedient time possible, consistent with the legitimate needs of law enforcement or any measures necessary to determine the scope of the breach and restore the reasonable integrity of the system. There is no explicit statutory minimum number of affected individuals that triggers notification; rather, the trigger is the discovery of a breach of security of the system. The act also permits alternative forms of notification if the cost of providing notice would exceed a certain threshold, or if the affected individuals cannot be identified. The core principle is timely and adequate notification to protect individuals from potential harm.

The North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act, codified in Chapter 75D of the North Carolina General Statutes, outlines specific requirements for businesses that collect, store, or transmit personal identifying information of North Carolina residents. A critical component of this act is the data breach notification requirement. Section 75D-25(b) mandates that a person or entity that conducts business in North Carolina and owns or licenses computerized data that includes personal identifying information of a North Carolina resident shall notify each affected resident of any breach of the security of the system. This notification must be made without unreasonable delay, and in any event, no later than 45 days after the discovery of the breach, unless a longer period is required for remedial actions. The act further specifies the content of such notification, which must include a description of the incident, the types of information involved, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. It also allows for substitute notice if the cost of providing individual notice would exceed a certain threshold, or if the entity has insufficient contact information. The act does not require notification if the personal identifying information has been encrypted, redacted, or otherwise made unreadable. The question focuses on the timeline and conditions for notification under this specific North Carolina statute, distinguishing it from federal laws or laws of other states. The correct response reflects the 45-day statutory deadline and the conditions under which an exception might apply, such as the information being rendered unintelligible.

The North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act, codified in Chapter 75 of the North Carolina General Statutes, specifically § 75-60 et seq., outlines the requirements for businesses that own or license the personal information of North Carolina residents. This act mandates that businesses implement reasonable security measures to protect personal information from unauthorized access or acquisition. When a breach of that security occurs, the act requires notification to affected individuals and, in certain circumstances, to the North Carolina Attorney General. The definition of “personal information” under the Act is broad, encompassing a resident’s name in combination with a social security number, driver’s license number, or financial account number. A “security breach” is defined as unauthorized acquisition of computerized personal information that compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of the personal information. The Act requires notification without unreasonable delay and in the most expedient time possible, generally no later than 45 days after discovery of the breach, unless a longer period is required for investigation by law enforcement. The notification must include specific content, such as a description of the incident, the types of information involved, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. The Act also specifies when notification to the Attorney General is required, typically when the breach affects more than 1,000 North Carolina residents.

The North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act, specifically focusing on the notification requirements for data breaches, outlines distinct obligations for entities that own or license sensitive personal information of North Carolina residents. When a breach of the security of the system is discovered, an investigation must be conducted to determine if unauthorized acquisition of the information has occurred. If the investigation confirms that unauthorized acquisition of the information has occurred, and that such acquisition is likely to cause identity theft or other specified harm to any resident of North Carolina, then the entity must provide notice. The timing of this notice is critical. Generally, the notice must be provided without unreasonable delay, and no later than 45 days after the discovery of the breach. This 45-day period is a statutory deadline, and any delay beyond this without a compelling justification, such as the need to cooperate with law enforcement, would likely constitute a violation. The law also mandates that if the breach affects more than one thousand North Carolina residents, the entity must also notify the Attorney General of North Carolina. This notification to the Attorney General must occur at the same time or earlier than the notification to the affected individuals. The scope of “sensitive personal information” is defined broadly to include, but not limited to, a social security number, driver’s license number, state identification card number, or account number, in combination with a name, address, or other information that would permit identification of the individual. The concept of “unreasonable delay” is key, and the 45-day timeframe serves as a benchmark for what is generally considered reasonable.

The North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act (NC ITPA), codified in Chapter 75 of the North Carolina General Statutes, specifically Article 2A, outlines requirements for data security and breach notification. Section 75-61 mandates that any person or entity that conducts business in North Carolina and owns or licenses computerized personal information of North Carolina residents must implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices. These procedures are designed to protect the personal information from unauthorized access, acquisition, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure. The Act defines “personal information” broadly to include a Social Security number, driver’s license number, state identification card number, or financial account number, or any other information that, alone or in combination with other information, can be used to identify, contact, or locate a specific individual. When a breach of the security of the system occurs, the entity must, without unreasonable delay, and in any event no later than 45 days after discovery of the breach, notify affected North Carolina residents. The notification must include a description of the incident, the types of information involved, the steps individuals can take to protect themselves, and contact information for the entity. Furthermore, if the breach affects more than 1,000 North Carolina residents, the entity must also notify the North Carolina Attorney General. The Act’s focus is on proactive measures for data security and a structured response to breaches to safeguard the personal information of North Carolina citizens.

North Carolina’s consumer privacy law, the North Carolina Privacy and Data Protection Act (NCDPPA), grants consumers specific rights regarding their personal data. One of these rights is the right to opt-out of the sale of personal data. The NCDPPA defines “sale” broadly, encompassing the exchange of personal data for monetary or other valuable consideration. It is crucial to understand that this definition extends beyond simple monetary transactions to include situations where data is shared for targeted advertising or other business purposes that provide a benefit to the controller, even if no direct payment is involved. The act requires controllers to provide clear notice of this right and a mechanism for consumers to exercise it. This mechanism typically involves a link or button labeled “Do Not Sell My Personal Information” or a similar phrase. The law also specifies that a controller cannot require a consumer to take affirmative action to opt-out of the sale of their personal data, meaning the opt-out process must be straightforward and not burdensome. Furthermore, the NCDPPA mandates that once a consumer opts out, the controller must refrain from selling that consumer’s personal data. This obligation persists for at least 12 months, after which the controller may request the consumer to reauthorize the sale of their personal data. The law emphasizes transparency and consumer control over their digital footprint, aligning with broader trends in data privacy legislation across the United States.

The North Carolina Consumer Privacy Act (NCCPA) establishes specific requirements for businesses that process the personal data of North Carolina residents. A key aspect of the NCCPA, similar to other comprehensive state privacy laws, is the delineation of who qualifies as a “consumer” and under what conditions a business must comply. The NCCPA defines a “consumer” as a natural person who is a resident of North Carolina. This residency is determined by the intent to establish a domicile in North Carolina. The Act applies to a “controller” or “processor” that conducts business in North Carolina or produces or directs its activities toward North Carolina residents, and that meets certain thresholds. These thresholds include controlling or processing the personal data of at least 100,000 North Carolina consumers, or controlling or processing the personal data of at least 25,000 North Carolina consumers and deriving more than 25% of its annual gross revenue from the sale of personal data. The question focuses on the definition of a consumer under the NCCPA, which is tied to residency. Therefore, an individual who is physically present in North Carolina for a temporary purpose, such as a tourist or business traveler, but does not intend to establish domicile there, is not considered a “consumer” for the purposes of the NCCPA. This distinction is crucial for businesses in determining their compliance obligations.

The scenario involves a North Carolina-based financial services firm, “Carolina Capital,” that collects personal information from its clients. The firm utilizes a third-party cloud storage provider, “SecureCloud Solutions,” based in California, to store this data. Carolina Capital is subject to North Carolina’s privacy laws, primarily the North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act (NC § 75-13 et seq.) and any applicable federal regulations like the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) for financial institutions. The question probes the firm’s responsibility regarding data security when using a third-party vendor. Under North Carolina law, and generally under data protection principles, entities that collect and process personal information remain responsible for ensuring the security of that data, even when it is transferred to or processed by a third party. This responsibility includes conducting due diligence on vendors, ensuring contractual agreements mandate appropriate security measures, and monitoring the vendor’s compliance. Therefore, Carolina Capital must ensure SecureCloud Solutions implements reasonable security measures to protect client data, regardless of SecureCloud’s location or the specific contractual terms regarding liability allocation. The core principle is that the originating entity retains accountability for data protection.

The North Carolina Consumer Privacy Act (NCCPA) grants consumers the right to opt out of the sale of personal data. A “sale” under the NCCPA is broadly defined to include any exchange of personal data for monetary or other valuable consideration. This consideration does not need to be direct financial payment; it can encompass any benefit conferred upon the controller. In the scenario presented, a North Carolina resident, Elara Vance, has provided her data to a marketing firm. This firm, in turn, shares aggregated, anonymized data with a third-party analytics company. While the direct exchange between Elara and the marketing firm might not be a “sale” in the traditional sense if no direct payment was made by Elara, the subsequent sharing of her data, even in an aggregated and anonymized form, with the analytics company for their own business purposes constitutes a “sale” under the NCCPA if the analytics company provides valuable consideration to the marketing firm. This consideration could be in the form of access to the analytics company’s proprietary tools, insights derived from the data, or even future reciprocal data sharing. The key is the transfer of personal data for something of value. Therefore, the marketing firm must provide Elara with a clear and conspicuous notice of her right to opt out of this sale of her personal data. The specific mechanism for opting out, such as a “Do Not Sell My Personal Information” link, is a requirement for controllers who engage in such sales. The NCCPA’s definition of sale is inclusive and aims to capture a wide range of data-sharing practices that benefit businesses, even if money doesn’t change hands directly for the specific data transfer.

The scenario describes a North Carolina business, “Tar Heel Tech,” that collects personal information from its customers. The core of the question revolves around the obligations of such a business under North Carolina law when a data breach occurs. North Carolina’s data breach notification law, codified primarily in Chapter 75 of the North Carolina General Statutes, mandates specific actions when a breach of unencrypted personal information occurs. The law requires notification to affected individuals and, in certain circumstances, to the North Carolina Attorney General. The key elements for notification are the unauthorized acquisition of computerized personal data that, when combined with other available information, allows for the identification of an individual. The law also specifies the content of the notification, including a description of the incident, the types of information involved, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. It also outlines deadlines for notification. In this case, Tar Heel Tech discovered a breach involving customer names, addresses, and Social Security numbers, which constitutes “personal information” under the statute. The data was not encrypted. Therefore, the business has a legal obligation to notify affected individuals and the Attorney General. The timing of the notification is also crucial, generally requiring it to be made without unreasonable delay and no later than 45 days after discovery, unless law enforcement requests a delay. The question asks about the primary legal obligation.