Abstract
Abstract From 2003 to 2018, all 50 states and the District of Columbia enacted breach notification laws (BNLs) mandating that firms suffering data breaches provide timely notification to affected persons and others about breach incidents and mitigation responses. BNLs were supposed to decrease data breaches and develop a market for data privacy where firms could strike their preferred balance between data security quality and cost. We find no systemic evidence for either supposition. Results from two-way difference-in-difference analyses indicate no decrease in data breach incident counts or magnitudes after BNLs are enacted. Results also indicate no longer-term decrease in data misuse after breaches. These non-effects appear to be precisely estimated nulls that persist for different firms, time-periods, data-breach types, and BNL types. Apparently inconsistent notification standards and inadequate information dissemination to the public may explain BNL ineffectiveness. An alternative federal regime may address these shortcomings and let a national BNL achieve goals state BNLs have apparently failed to meet.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
