Connecticut Cybersecurity Bill Prohibiting Punitive Damages for Businesses Advances in State Legislature
Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert | 2 min read
Jun 16, 2021
On May 24, 2021, the Connecticut House of Representatives passed House Bill 6607, "An Act Incentivizing The Adoption Of Cybersecurity Standards For Businesses," which carves out a data security safe harbor provision for Connecticut businesses. The Bill prohibits the Connecticut Superior Court from assessing punitive damages to covered business entities for data breaches of personal or restricted information under certain circumstances.
The Bill requires covered entities to create, maintain, and comply with a written cybersecurity plan that conforms to industry standards and is risk-based. "Covered Entities" are defined as businesses that access, maintain, communicate, or process personal or restricted information via systems, networks, or services located inside or outside the state.
First, the scale and scope of a covered entity's cybersecurity plan must be based on the entity's size, complexity, and the nature and scope of its activities. The plan must also be based upon the sensitivity of the information to be protected in addition to the cost and availability of tools to improve information security and reduce vulnerabilities.
Second, a qualifying cybersecurity plan must be based on a current version of any of the six listed frameworks in combination with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard. For entities regulated by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014, security requirements of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or state or federal government, the cybersecurity framework must incorporate one of the four federal laws and regulations specified in the Bill.
An earlier version of the Bill provided an affirmative defense to a civil action rather than a bar on punitive damages. The Assembly further amended the Bill to disqualify covered entities for certain conduct and implemented a six-month time period by which a covered entity's cybersecurity program must conform with revisions or amendments to certain cybersecurity frameworks, laws, and regulations. In addition to creating specific exemptions to certain statutes, executive powers, and legal processes, the amendment altered the definitions of personal and restricted information.
The Bill would not:
- Limit the authority of the attorney general or the Department of Consumer Protection commissioner to seek administrative, legal, or equitable relief allowed by law;
- Affect or limit the process of granting class certifications in class actions; or
- Affect or limit existing statutory structures for (1) state contractors who receive confidential information and (2) Connecticut businesses that maintain computerized personal information and suffer security breaches.
Passed by the Connecticut Senate on June 7, the Bill is now on a consent calendar as a formality before heading to the Governor. The Bill would be effective on October 1, 2021.
Related Capabilities
Featured Insights

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

Press Release
Jul 15, 2026
Two Hinshaw Partners Recognized in Minnesota Monthly's 2026 Top Lawyers in Minnesota

Event
July 13-15, 2026
Hinshaw Proudly Sponsors 2026 Lavender Law Conference and Career Fair

Webinar
Jul 14, 2026
Scott Seaman Presents on Horizontal vs. Vertical Exhaustion of Insurance

Healthcare Alert
Jul 8, 2026
A New Era of Compliance Standards for California DSOs and MSOs After the Aspen Dental Settlement

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 7, 2026
What Insurers Need to Know About California’s FAIR Plan Assessment Recoupment Guidance

In The News
Jul 6, 2026
Francesco Palanda’s Practical Guide for Mitigating AI-Related Business Interruption Risk

Lawyers' Lawyer Newsletter
Jun 29, 2026
Beyond Malpractice: The Rising Threat of Privacy and Statutory Claims Against Lawyers



