The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (MITPA), Public Act 453 of 2004, as amended, specifically addresses the obligations of entities that own or license personal identifying information. Section 11 of the Act outlines the requirements for a data security breach. A “data breach” is defined as unauthorized acquisition of unencrypted computerized personal information that reasonably causes or may cause identity theft or other unlawful use of the personal information. The Act mandates that if a breach occurs, the entity must notify affected individuals and the Attorney General without unreasonable delay. The notification must include specific details about the breach, the type of information compromised, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. There is no specific waiting period of 60 days before notification; the standard is “without unreasonable delay.” The Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) is a broader statute governing deceptive or unfair practices, but MITPA is the primary legislation for data breach notification in Michigan. While the MCPA can be invoked in cases involving misleading privacy policies, it does not dictate the specific timeline for data breach notification in the same way MITPA does. Therefore, the core requirement under MITPA is prompt notification, with “unreasonable delay” being the key qualifier, not a fixed statutory period like 60 days.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (ITPA), MCL 445.61 et seq., governs the security and privacy of personal identifying information. Specifically, MCL 445.63 outlines the requirements for businesses that own or license personal information to implement and maintain reasonable security policies and procedures. These policies must include administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect personal information from unauthorized access, acquisition, use, or disclosure. The act does not mandate a specific encryption standard but requires that the safeguards are appropriate to the nature and scope of the business and the type of personal information collected. Therefore, a business must assess its data handling practices and implement a layered security approach that includes measures like encryption, access controls, and regular security audits to comply with the “reasonable security” standard. The focus is on the overall effectiveness of the security program in preventing data breaches.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (MITPA), Public Act 453 of 2004, as amended, specifically addresses data security breach notification requirements for entities that own or license personal information. Section 5 of the Act outlines the obligations of a “person” (which includes governmental agencies, businesses, and other organizations) when a breach of the security of the system occurs. The Act mandates that a breach notification must be made without unreasonable delay and, where feasible, no later than 45 days after the discovery of the breach. This notification must be clear and conspicuous, informing individuals about the incident, the type of personal information involved, and steps they can take to protect themselves. The Act also permits for substitute notice if the cost of providing individual notice would exceed a certain threshold or if there are insufficient contact details for a significant portion of affected individuals. The core principle is to inform affected individuals promptly to mitigate potential harm, with a defined outer limit for notification to ensure timely communication. The concept of “unreasonable delay” is key, balancing the need for swift action with the practicalities of investigating and assessing a breach.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (ITPA), specifically MCL 445.61 et seq., outlines requirements for businesses that own or license personal identifying information. A key aspect of this act relates to data breach notification. When a breach occurs that compromises personal identifying information, the responsible entity must notify affected individuals without unreasonable delay. The act defines personal identifying information broadly to include items like social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, and financial account numbers. The notification must include a description of the incident, the type of information disclosed, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. While the act does not mandate specific encryption standards, it does require reasonable security measures to protect personal identifying information. The concept of “reasonable security” is often interpreted in light of industry best practices and the sensitivity of the data. The act also allows for notification to consumer reporting agencies if a large number of residents are affected. The core principle is to provide timely and informative notice to individuals whose sensitive data may have been compromised, enabling them to mitigate potential harm.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (ITPA), MCL 445.61 et seq., specifically addresses the notification requirements for breaches of Personally Identifiable Information (PII). When a data breach occurs that compromises the sensitive personal information of Michigan residents, the entity holding that information must provide notification to affected individuals and, in certain circumstances, to the Michigan Attorney General. The Act defines PII broadly to include information that can be used to identify an individual, such as a Social Security number, driver’s license number, or financial account information, when linked with a name or other identifier. The core principle is that individuals have a right to know if their sensitive data has been exposed to potential misuse. The Act mandates that notification must be made without unreasonable delay and, in the case of a consumer reporting agency, within 30 days of discovery. The content of the notification is also prescribed, requiring a description of the incident, the type of information disclosed, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. The ITPA does not impose a blanket prohibition on the collection or use of PII, but rather regulates the response to unauthorized disclosure. Therefore, the primary obligation triggered by a breach is the notification process.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (ITPA), specifically MCL 445.63, outlines the requirements for data breach notification. When a breach of personally identifiable information occurs, entities must notify affected individuals without unreasonable delay, but no later than 45 days after the discovery of the breach. This notification must include specific details such as a description of the incident, the types of information involved, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. The law also mandates notification to the Michigan Attorney General if the breach affects more than 1,000 Michigan residents. The concept of “unreasonable delay” is crucial, implying that prompt action is expected once a breach is identified and the scope is understood. The 45-day outer limit is a statutory guideline, but the intent is for notification to occur as soon as feasible after the entity has reasonably assessed the situation and the scope of the compromised data. This timeframe is designed to balance the need for thorough investigation with the urgency of informing individuals to mitigate potential harm. The Act does not specify a precise calculation for determining the exact moment of “discovery” beyond the general understanding that it begins when the entity becomes aware of the unauthorized acquisition or access to personal information.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act, Public Act 453 of 2004, as amended, governs the notification requirements for breaches of personal identifying information. A “breach of the security of the system” is defined as unauthorized acquisition of computerized data that compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of personal identifying information. Personal identifying information includes, but is not limited to, a Social Security number, a driver’s license number, a state identification card number, or an account number combined with a security code or password. When a breach occurs, a person or entity that conducts business in Michigan and owns or licenses computerized personal identifying information of Michigan residents must provide notification to affected individuals without unreasonable delay. The notification must be in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay, but no later than 45 days after the discovery of the breach, unless a longer period is required by federal law or the law of another state. The notification must include specific content, such as a description of the incident, the types of personal identifying information involved, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. The question asks about the maximum timeframe for notification to Michigan residents following a confirmed data breach, assuming no other federal or state laws dictate a shorter period. The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act sets a default outer limit for this notification. The act specifies that notification must be provided “without unreasonable delay, but no later than 45 days after the discovery of the breach.” Therefore, 45 days is the maximum period allowed under Michigan law for such notifications in the absence of conflicting mandates.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act, MCL 445.63, outlines specific requirements for businesses when they discover a breach of Personally Identifiable Information (PII). A covered entity must conduct a reasonable and prompt investigation to determine the nature and scope of the breach. If the investigation reveals that a breach of PII has occurred, the entity must notify affected individuals and the Attorney General. The notification must be made in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay, not to exceed 45 days after the discovery of the breach, unless a longer period is required for remedial actions. The notification must include specific details about the breach, the type of PII compromised, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. The act does not mandate a specific waiting period before initiating notifications, but rather emphasizes promptness. The requirement for notification is triggered by a breach of PII, not by the mere possibility or suspicion of a breach. The scope of PII is defined broadly under the act to include information that can be used to identify an individual.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act, MCL 445.61 et seq., mandates specific requirements for data security and breach notification. When a breach of the secured personal information of a Michigan resident occurs, entities must provide notification to affected individuals and, in certain circumstances, to the Michigan Attorney General. The Act defines “personal information” broadly to include an individual’s name in combination with a Social Security number, driver’s license number, financial account number, or medical information. A “security breach” is defined as unauthorized acquisition of computerized personal information that compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of the personal information. The notification requirement is triggered by the acquisition of this data, not necessarily by its subsequent misuse. The Act also outlines the content of the notification, which must include a description of the incident, the type of information involved, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. Furthermore, it specifies timelines for notification, generally without unreasonable delay and no later than 45 days after discovery of the breach, unless a longer period is required for investigation by law enforcement. The core principle is to inform individuals promptly about potential risks to their personal information.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (ITPA), specifically MCL 445.67, outlines requirements for businesses when responding to a request from an individual to access or correct their personal information. The Act mandates a timeframe for such responses. While the Act itself does not specify a precise number of business days for all types of requests, it does require a response “without unreasonable delay.” However, common interpretations and best practices, often influenced by federal standards and other state laws, suggest a general expectation for prompt action. For a request to access or correct personal information, a reasonable timeframe is typically considered to be within 30 days. This period allows for internal review, verification, and compilation of the requested data or implementation of the correction. The Michigan ITPA emphasizes that the delay should not be unreasonable, implying a need for diligence and timely action from the entity holding the data. It is crucial for businesses to have established procedures to handle these requests efficiently to comply with the spirit and intent of the law. The absence of a hard deadline in the statute means that the definition of “unreasonable delay” can be fact-dependent, but a proactive approach aiming for a 30-day turnaround is a widely accepted standard for demonstrating compliance with the promptness requirement.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (ITPA), MCL 445.61, outlines specific requirements for businesses that own or license personal identifying information of Michigan residents. A key aspect of this act, particularly relevant to data breaches, is the notification obligation. When a breach of the security of the system occurs, and it is reasonably believed that the personal identifying information of a Michigan resident has been acquired by an unauthorized person, the entity must provide notification. The act specifies that this notification should be made without unreasonable delay, consistent with the legitimate needs of law enforcement or the measures necessary to restore the integrity of the system and prevent further breaches. The notification must include a description of the incident, the types of personal identifying information involved, the steps the individual can take to protect themselves, and information about the entity itself and how to contact it. The act does not mandate a specific timeframe like 60 days for all notifications, but rather emphasizes promptness and reasonableness in light of the circumstances and any ongoing investigations. Therefore, a notification made within 45 days, provided it meets the content requirements and is not unreasonably delayed due to law enforcement needs or system restoration efforts, would be compliant with the general principles of the ITPA. The concept of “reasonable delay” is crucial, allowing for circumstances where immediate notification might compromise an investigation or exacerbate the harm.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (MITPA), MCL 445.61 et seq., mandates specific requirements for businesses that own or license personal identifying information of Michigan residents. When a breach of that information occurs, businesses must provide notification to affected individuals. The Act defines “personal identifying information” broadly to include various data points that could be used to commit identity theft. A key aspect of the Act is the definition of a “breach of the security of the system.” This is interpreted as unauthorized acquisition of computerized personal identifying information that compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of the personal identifying information. The Act does not require notification if the personal identifying information is encrypted or otherwise rendered unreadable or unusable. The Act also outlines specific content requirements for the notification, including a description of the incident, the types of personal identifying information involved, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. Furthermore, it specifies when notification to consumer reporting agencies is required, generally when the breach affects more than 1,000 Michigan residents. The Act preempts local ordinances on data breach notification, establishing a statewide standard. It is crucial for businesses to understand these provisions to ensure compliance and mitigate potential liabilities arising from data security incidents involving Michigan residents’ personal information. The question focuses on the threshold for notifying consumer reporting agencies, which is explicitly stated in the Act.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act, MCL 445.71, specifically addresses the requirements for businesses that collect and maintain personal identifying information. While the Act mandates certain security measures and notification procedures in the event of a data breach, it does not explicitly define or regulate the concept of “data minimization” as a standalone requirement for all businesses. Data minimization is a broader privacy principle, often associated with regulations like the GDPR, that advocates for collecting and retaining only the data that is necessary for a specific, stated purpose. Michigan law, particularly MCL 445.71, focuses on the *protection* of collected personal identifying information and the *response* to breaches, rather than prescribing the initial collection scope. Therefore, a business operating in Michigan is not directly mandated by MCL 445.71 to implement a data minimization policy, although such a policy is a best practice for overall privacy compliance and may be indirectly encouraged by the Act’s emphasis on safeguarding information.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (ITPA), specifically MCL 445.61 et seq., mandates certain requirements for businesses that handle personal identifying information (PII). A key aspect of this act pertains to data breach notification procedures. When a breach of the security of a system containing PII is discovered, the entity must conduct a prompt investigation to determine the nature and scope of the breach. If the investigation reveals that PII has been or is reasonably believed to have been acquired by an unauthorized person, the entity must provide notice to affected individuals. The act outlines specific content requirements for this notice, including a description of the incident, the types of PII involved, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. Furthermore, the ITPA requires notification to the Attorney General if the breach affects more than 1,000 Michigan residents. The timeline for notification is generally 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 law enforcement purposes. The scenario describes a situation where a cybersecurity firm operating in Michigan discovers a breach affecting resident PII. The firm’s internal investigation confirms that sensitive data was accessed. The crucial element is the number of affected Michigan residents. If the breach impacts fewer than 1,000 Michigan residents, direct notification to the Attorney General is not mandated by the ITPA, though notification to affected individuals is still required. If the breach impacts 1,000 or more Michigan residents, both individual notification and notification to the Attorney General are required. Since the scenario states the breach affects “approximately 850” Michigan residents, this number falls below the 1,000 threshold for mandatory Attorney General notification under the Michigan ITPA. Therefore, the primary obligation is to notify the affected individuals.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (MITPA), Public Act 453 of 2004, outlines specific requirements for businesses that own or license the personal identifying information of Michigan residents. When a breach of that information occurs, MITPA mandates notification to affected individuals and, in certain circumstances, to the Michigan Attorney General. The Act defines “personal identifying information” broadly, including names, addresses, social security numbers, and financial account information. The notification requirement is triggered by a breach that creates a reasonable risk of identity theft or fraud. Businesses must provide notice in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay, consistent with the legitimate needs of law enforcement or national security. The content of the notification is also specified, generally requiring a description of the breach, the type of information involved, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. The Act does not require notification if the business has implemented and maintains reasonable security measures that render the information unusable, illegible, or undecipherable to unauthorized persons. This exception is crucial for businesses that employ robust encryption or data anonymization techniques. The prompt describes a scenario where a cloud service provider, handling data for Michigan residents, experiences a breach. The provider uses strong encryption for all personal identifying information. The key legal concept here is the exception to the notification requirement under MITPA when the compromised data is rendered unusable. Since the data is encrypted and thus unusable by unauthorized parties, the notification provisions of MITPA are not triggered. This aligns with the legislative intent to balance consumer protection with the practicalities of data security and to avoid unnecessary alarm and cost for businesses that have taken adequate protective measures.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (ITPA), specifically MCL 445.61 et seq., outlines the requirements for businesses to protect sensitive personal information. When a breach of unencrypted personal information occurs, the act mandates notification to affected individuals and, in certain circumstances, to the Attorney General. The determination of whether notification is required hinges on whether the compromised data is “unencrypted” and constitutes “personal information” as defined by the act. Personal information is broadly defined to include a range of data points that could be used to identify an individual, such as a social security number, driver’s license number, or financial account number, when linked with an individual’s name or other identifying marker. The scenario describes a breach of a database containing customer names, addresses, and encrypted social security numbers. The critical factor here is that the social security numbers were encrypted. The ITPA’s notification trigger is for the acquisition of unencrypted personal information. Since the social security numbers, a key component of personal information, were encrypted, and the prompt does not suggest the encryption was compromised or that other unencrypted personal information was exposed in a manner that would violate the act, no notification under the ITPA is triggered by this specific breach. Other federal or industry-specific regulations might apply, but based solely on the Michigan ITPA and the information provided, the lack of unencrypted personal information means no statutory obligation for notification arises under this Michigan law.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (MITPA), MCL 445.61 et seq., governs data security breach notification requirements for entities that own or license personal identifying information (PII) of Michigan residents. A critical aspect of MITPA is the definition of a “data breach.” Under MCL 445.63(d), a data breach occurs when there is an unauthorized acquisition of computerized personal information that creates a reasonable risk of identity theft or other unlawful use of the information. The act does not mandate a specific numerical threshold for notification, but rather focuses on the risk of harm. Therefore, the determination of whether a breach necessitates notification hinges on a qualitative assessment of the risk of identity theft or misuse, not on a predetermined number of affected individuals. The presence of sensitive PII, the method of acquisition, and the potential for malicious intent are all factors in this risk assessment. The law requires notification without unreasonable delay, and no later than 45 days after the discovery of the breach, unless a law enforcement investigation necessitates a delay. The core principle is to inform affected individuals when their PII is compromised in a way that poses a genuine risk.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (MITPA), Public Act 453 of 2004, as amended, mandates specific requirements for data security and breach notification for entities that own or license personal identifying information (PII) of Michigan residents. While MITPA does not explicitly define a separate category for “sensitive personal information” in the same way some other states or federal laws do, it broadly defines personal identifying information to include data elements that can be used to identify an individual. The Act requires reasonable security measures to protect this information and outlines notification procedures in the event of a data breach. The core of MITPA’s requirements revolves around safeguarding PII and promptly informing affected individuals and relevant authorities following a security breach. The Act’s scope is generally understood to encompass any data that, alone or in combination with other data, could reasonably be used to identify a specific Michigan resident, thereby necessitating robust data protection practices.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (ITPA), MCL 445.61 et seq., governs data security breach notification requirements for businesses. Specifically, MCL 445.63(1) mandates that a person or entity that owns or licenses computerized data that includes personal identifying information of a resident of Michigan shall implement and maintain reasonable security safeguards to protect the personal identifying information from unauthorized acquisition. If a breach of the security of the system occurs, the person or entity must provide notice to any resident of this state whose personal identifying information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person. The notice must be provided without unreasonable delay and must include specific information as outlined in the act, such as the nature of the breach, the type of information compromised, and steps the individual can take to protect themselves. The act does not prescribe a specific number of days for notification but emphasizes “without unreasonable delay.” The Michigan Attorney General’s office also provides guidance on these requirements. The scenario describes a company that discovered a breach affecting Michigan residents’ personal identifying information and is now developing a notification strategy. The most appropriate action, adhering to the spirit and letter of the ITPA, is to provide prompt notification to affected Michigan residents detailing the breach and offering protective measures. This aligns with the core purpose of the ITPA: to inform individuals about potential identity theft risks arising from data breaches and empower them to mitigate those risks.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (ITPA), MCL 445.61, governs data breach notification requirements for entities holding personal identifying information of Michigan residents. When a data breach occurs, an entity must provide notice to affected individuals without unreasonable delay. The Act specifies that this notification must be in the clearest and most conspicuous manner possible. For a breach affecting 1,000 or more Michigan residents, the entity must also notify the Attorney General of Michigan. The definition of “personal identifying information” under the ITPA includes a social security number, driver’s license number, or a financial account number. In the scenario presented, the breach involves approximately 1,500 Michigan residents’ email addresses and dates of birth. While email addresses and dates of birth are sensitive, the ITPA’s definition of “personal identifying information” as it pertains to mandatory notification to the Attorney General primarily focuses on data elements that can directly lead to identity theft, such as Social Security numbers or financial account numbers. However, the requirement to notify affected individuals directly still applies if the compromised information, in combination with other data, could facilitate identity theft or unauthorized access. The Act requires that the notification be made in the clearest and most conspicuous manner possible. The most prudent and legally compliant approach, given the potential for misuse of aggregated personal data and the direct notification requirement to individuals, is to proceed with notifying both the affected individuals and the Attorney General. The threshold for notifying the Attorney General is 1,000 or more residents, which is met here. The nature of the data (email addresses and dates of birth) can contribute to identity theft, making notification to both parties essential for compliance and consumer protection under Michigan law.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (ITPA), Public Act 453 of 1972, as amended, specifically addresses the notification requirements for breaches of personally identifiable information (PII). While the Act is broad in its scope concerning identity theft, the core obligation for data breach notification is triggered when there is an unauthorized acquisition of computerized personal information that compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of the personal information. The Act mandates that a “person” who conducts business in Michigan and owns or licenses computerized personal information must notify affected individuals and, in certain circumstances, the Attorney General and consumer reporting agencies, following a breach. The definition of “person” under the Act includes individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, and other legal entities. The critical element for triggering notification is the compromise of sensitive personal information, which the Act defines broadly to include names, addresses, social security numbers, and other data that can be used to identify an individual. The Act does not require notification if the information is encrypted or otherwise rendered unreadable, unintact, or unusable. The timeframe for notification is generally “without unreasonable delay” and no later than 45 days after discovery of the breach, unless a longer period is required by federal law. The notification must include specific details about the breach, the type of information compromised, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (MITPA), MCL 445.61 to 445.70, mandates specific requirements for businesses that own or license the personal identifying information of Michigan residents. A key aspect of this act is the notification requirement in the event of a data breach. When a breach of the security of the system is known to have occurred, the person owning or licensing the computerized personal information shall, without unreasonable delay, and in any event within 45 days, notify each resident of this state whose personal identifying information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person. The act defines “personal identifying information” broadly to include a driver’s license number, a social security number, or a federal or state identification number, as well as a financial account number, or a debit or credit card number, in combination with any required security code, access code, or password that would permit access to the individual’s financial account. The notification must include specific content, such as a description of the incident, the type of information involved, and steps the individual can take to protect themselves. The phrase “without unreasonable delay” coupled with the explicit 45-day timeframe establishes the outer limit for notification, emphasizing timely communication to affected individuals. The law does not mandate a specific dollar amount for damages or a minimum number of affected individuals to trigger the notification requirement; rather, it is the acquisition of the specified types of personal identifying information by an unauthorized person that initiates the duty to notify. Therefore, if a breach involving the personal identifying information of Michigan residents is discovered, and the entity has a legal obligation under MITPA, the notification must be provided within 45 days of the discovery of the breach.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (MITPA), MCL 445.61 et seq., governs data breaches and notification requirements. A critical aspect of MITPA is the definition of a data breach, which includes the unauthorized acquisition of or access to computerized personal information that creates a risk of identity theft or other harm. When such a breach occurs, covered entities must provide notification to affected individuals, the Attorney General, and consumer reporting agencies under specific circumstances. The law distinguishes between different types of entities and the thresholds for notification. For instance, a breach affecting more than 1,000 residents of Michigan triggers a requirement to notify consumer reporting agencies. The act also outlines the content of the notification, which must include specific details about the breach, the types of information compromised, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. Furthermore, the law addresses the responsibilities of third-party service providers who handle personal information on behalf of other entities, requiring them to implement reasonable security measures and notify the contracting entity of any breach. The concept of “risk of harm” is central to determining when notification is mandatory, implying a qualitative assessment beyond mere unauthorized access. The Michigan Attorney General’s office provides guidance and enforcement related to the act.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (MITPA), MCL 445.61 et seq., requires businesses that own or license personal identifying information to implement and maintain reasonable security measures to protect it from unauthorized access or acquisition. When a breach of this data occurs, MITPA mandates notification to affected individuals and, in certain circumstances, to the Michigan Attorney General. The Act defines “personal identifying information” broadly to include data that can be used to identify an individual, such as a Social Security number, driver’s license number, or financial account information. The notification obligation is triggered by a breach that creates a reasonable risk of identity theft or fraud. The content and timing of the notification are also specified. The Act does not create a private right of action for individuals to sue for violations, but rather relies on enforcement by the Attorney General. Therefore, a business’s primary obligation upon discovering a breach is to assess the risk and provide timely and appropriate notice as stipulated by the Act.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (ITPA), MCL 445.61 et seq., specifically addresses the obligations of entities that own or license, and maintain, sensitive personal information of Michigan residents. While the Act does not mandate specific data security measures, it establishes a framework for notification in the event of a breach. The core of the ITPA is the requirement for a “person” (defined broadly to include individuals, corporations, and other entities) to notify affected Michigan residents and, in certain circumstances, the Attorney General, if there is a breach of the security of the system containing sensitive personal information. Sensitive personal information is defined as a social security number, driver’s license number, state identification card number, account number, or debit or credit card number, in combination with any required security code, access password, or PIN for the account, or any other information that would permit access to a financial account. The Act focuses on the *discovery* of a breach and the subsequent *duty to notify*. The timing of notification is critical: generally, it must be made without unreasonable delay and, in no event, later than 45 days after the discovery of the breach, unless a longer period is required for the investigation of the breach and the person reasonably believes that notification will interfere with the investigation. The Act also permits notification by mail or by electronic means if the resident has agreed to receive electronic notifications. It does not specify a private right of action but allows the Attorney General to seek civil penalties.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act, MCL 445.61 et seq., establishes specific requirements for businesses that own or license personal identifying information. A key component of this act is the mandate for reasonable security measures to protect this information from unauthorized access or acquisition. While the act does not prescribe a single, universal standard for “reasonable security,” it does provide guidance through examples of measures that may be considered reasonable. These include the implementation of administrative, technical, and physical safeguards. For instance, administrative safeguards might involve employee training on data protection protocols and data minimization policies. Technical safeguards could include encryption of data, firewalls, and secure network configurations. Physical safeguards would encompass access controls to facilities where data is stored and secure disposal of physical records. The determination of reasonableness is context-dependent, considering factors such as the nature and volume of the personal identifying information handled, the cost of implementing security measures, and the potential harm to individuals if a breach occurs. The act also outlines notification requirements in the event of a data breach. The scenario describes a business that has implemented a multi-layered approach involving encryption, access controls, and regular security audits. These actions collectively demonstrate a commitment to establishing and maintaining reasonable security measures as contemplated by the Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act. The absence of a specific, mandated cybersecurity framework does not negate the obligation to implement a robust, risk-based security program. The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act, in contrast to some other state laws, does not mandate adherence to specific cybersecurity frameworks like NIST or ISO 27001 as a safe harbor, but rather emphasizes the general duty of reasonable care. Therefore, a comprehensive approach that addresses administrative, technical, and physical safeguards is central to compliance.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (ITPA), Public Act 453 of 1972, as amended, and specifically its provisions concerning data security and breach notification, outlines the obligations of entities that own or license personal identifying information. When a breach of the security of the system is discovered, the entity must conduct a prompt investigation to determine the nature and scope of the breach and the identity of individuals whose personal identifying information may have been compromised. If the investigation reveals that personal identifying information of a Michigan resident has been, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person, the entity must provide notification to affected individuals without unreasonable delay. The Act specifies that notification must be made in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay, but in no case later than 45 days after the 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 involved, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. Other states have varying breach notification timelines, such as 30 days (e.g., New York, California) or 60 days. The Michigan ITPA’s 45-day timeframe, subject to extensions for law enforcement purposes, is a key compliance benchmark. The scenario describes a breach discovery on March 1st. An investigation is completed on March 15th, confirming compromised data of Michigan residents. The notification must be sent without unreasonable delay, but no later than 45 days from the discovery date. Therefore, the absolute latest date for notification, assuming no law enforcement extension, is April 14th (March has 31 days, so 31 – 1 = 30 days remaining in March, plus 14 days in April equals 45 days).

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (ITPA), specifically MCL 445.61, outlines requirements for data breach notification. When a breach of the security of a system containing personal identifying information is confirmed, the notification must be made without unreasonable delay. The act specifies that notification must be made to the consumer and, in certain circumstances, to the Attorney General and consumer reporting agencies. The definition of “personal identifying information” under MCL 445.63(e) includes a name combined with a social security number, driver’s license number, or financial account number. The core of the question revolves around the timing and content of the notification when a breach involves sensitive data. In this scenario, the breach involves names and social security numbers, which clearly falls under the definition of personal identifying information. The ITPA mandates notification to the affected individuals. While other states might have different thresholds or specific content requirements for notifications, Michigan’s law focuses on providing notice to the consumer without undue delay. The prompt asks about the obligation to notify consumers. The Michigan ITPA, MCL 445.65, mandates that a person who owns or licenses computerized data which includes personal identifying information shall notify each resident of this state whose personal identifying information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person. This notification must be made without unreasonable delay, consistent with the needs of law enforcement and the measures necessary to restore reasonable integrity to the system. Therefore, the primary obligation is to notify the affected Michigan residents.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (MITPA), specifically MCL § 445.61 et seq., governs the notification requirements for data breaches involving personal identifying information (PII). The Act mandates that a person or entity that owns or licenses personal information shall implement reasonable security measures to protect the personal information from unauthorized acquisition. If a breach of the security of the system occurs, and the acquisition of personal information is likely to result in a risk of identity theft or other unlawful use of the personal information, the person or entity must provide notification to affected individuals. This notification must be made in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay, consistent with any measures necessary to determine the scope of the breach and restore the integrity of the system. The Act does not specify a precise number of days for notification but emphasizes promptness. The key is that the notification must be made without unreasonable delay, considering the need to investigate and secure the system. Therefore, an entity discovering a breach on January 15th and providing notification by February 1st, assuming a reasonable investigation was conducted to confirm the scope and risk, would likely be in compliance with the “without unreasonable delay” standard. The notification must include specific content as outlined in the Act, such as the nature of the breach, the type of information involved, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. Other states, like California with its CCPA/CPRA, have different timelines and scope, but for Michigan, the emphasis is on promptness and reasonableness given the circumstances.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (MITPA), MCL 445.63, requires businesses that own or license a consumer’s personal identifying information to implement and maintain reasonable security measures to protect the personal identifying information from unauthorized access or acquisition. This obligation is triggered when a breach of the security of the system occurs, and it is reasonably believed that the personal identifying information of a consumer has been or will be acquired by an unauthorized person. The act defines “personal identifying information” broadly to include names, addresses, telephone numbers, and financial account numbers. The concept of “reasonable security measures” is context-dependent and involves an assessment of the nature and scope of the business, the sensitivity of the personal information handled, and the potential harm from a breach. The Act does not mandate specific technologies but rather a standard of care. Therefore, a business that collects and stores sensitive financial data of Michigan residents must implement robust encryption, access controls, and regular security audits to comply with its duty of care under MITPA. Failure to do so can lead to legal liability for damages resulting from identity theft or fraud. The focus is on proactive risk management and the implementation of safeguards that are appropriate for the data being protected and the nature of the business operations.