Back in November 2015, Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) D. Michael Chappell ruled that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) failed to show that LabMD, Inc.’s (LabMD) data security practices caused harm to consumers stemming from an alleged data breach, and therefore, recommended dismissal of the case against LabMD. [view related post].

Last week, the

We previously reported that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lost its case against LabMD alleging that LabMD had inadequate security measures to prevent an alleged data breach (related post here).

The FTC appealed the decision and filed its Appellate Brief on December 22, 2015. The brief can be accessed here.

We will keep

We reported last week that LabMD was successful in its fight against the FTC in the administrative investigation against it, prompted by a complaint made to the FTC by Tiversa, when LabMD refused to hire Tiversa to repair an alleged vulnerability in its system. The case was subsequently investigated by the House Committee on Oversight

We have been following the fight between LabMD and the FTC for years. It has been a story of high emotions, principles, standoffs, aggression, lawsuits, court decisions, Congressional hearings and accusations, all outlined in a book entitled “The Devil in the Beltway” (admittedly a one-sided account by LabMD CEO Mike Daugherty about the details of

We have been following this case closely, and you can read other posts on this case and get up to speed here.

On April 16, the administrative law judge in the FTC v. LabMD case denied LabMD’s request to exclude the FTC from introducing new evidence into the proceeding regarding how Tiversa Holding Corp.

The litigation between LabMD and the FTC is not mellowing.

Last week, LabMD filed a Motion to Exclude the FTC’s admission of all Tiversa documents during the FTC administrative hearing scheduled for May 5th.  LabMD argued that the FTC subpoenaed Tiversa in September of 2013, and Tiversa withheld responsive information from the subpoena,