Irish Authorities Request Microsoft to Investigate Alleged Illegal Data Processing by IDF

Irish officials have received a formal request to look into Microsoft regarding claims of unlawful data processing by the Israel Defense Forces.

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL), a human rights organization, filed the complaint with the Data Protection Commissioner, who is legally charged with overseeing all data processing activities within the European Union.

This comes after reports in August from the Guardian, along with Israeli-Palestinian publication +972 Magazine and Hebrew media Local Call, highlighted that substantial amounts of Palestinian phone communications were stored on Microsoft’s Azure cloud platform as part of an extensive surveillance initiative by the Israeli military.

The ICCL asserts that the handling of personal data “aided in the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide by Israeli forces.” Microsoft’s European headquarters are located in Ireland.

“Microsoft’s technologies are endangering millions of Palestinians. These are not just theoretical data protection issues,” said Joe O’Brien, executive director of ICCL.

He remarked that cloud services “enable tangible violence” and emphasized the need for the “DPC to respond swiftly and decisively” given the “risk to life involved in the matter at hand.”

He further stated, “When European infrastructure is used to facilitate surveillance and targeting, the Irish Data Protection Commissioner must step in and utilize its full authority to hold Microsoft accountable.”

A collection of leaked documents reviewed by the Guardian has indicated that as early as 2021, the Israeli military’s intelligence unit, Unit 8200, started discussions to transfer large amounts of classified intelligence data to a cloud service operated by a US company.

The documents revealed that Microsoft’s storage facilities were employed by Unit 8200 to archive extensive records of Palestinian daily communications, which facilitated specific airstrikes and other military actions.

Following this revelation, Microsoft initiated an urgent external inquiry into its connections with Unit 8200. Preliminary findings led the company to suspend this unit’s access to certain cloud storage and AI services.

ICCL contends that Microsoft played a crucial role in enabling Israel’s military surveillance system known as “Al-Minasek.”

The organization claims that records of intercepted conversations between EU servers and Israel were reportedly “deleted,” obstructing evidence of unlawful processing before an EU inquiry could commence, violating the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that regulates personal data usage.

With Azure’s vast storage and computational capabilities, Unit 8200 was establishing an indiscriminate system allowing agents to collect, replay, and analyze cell phone calls from entire populations.

A spokesperson for the DPC stated, “We can confirm that the DPC has received the complaint and is currently evaluating it.”

Microsoft has been approached for a response.

Source: www.theguardian.com

US Government Files Lawsuit Against Uber for Alleged Discrimination Against Disabled Passengers

On Thursday, the U.S. government filed a lawsuit against Uber, alleging that the ride-sharing service has breached federal laws by discriminating against passengers with disabilities.

The complaint, submitted in federal court in San Francisco, claims that Uber drivers frequently refuse to transport disabled riders, including those accompanied by service animals or using wheelchairs.

Additionally, the department stated that Uber and its drivers unlawfully impose cleaning fees for service animals on riders denied service and also charge cancellation fees.

Some drivers are reportedly dismissing legitimate requests, such as humiliating persons with disabilities or preventing passengers with mobility challenges from sitting in the front seats.

According to the Justice Department, “Uber’s discriminatory actions have inflicted significant financial, emotional, and physical harm on individuals with disabilities,” violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In response, Uber stated that it disputes the allegations and is dedicated to enhancing access and the overall experience for riders with disabilities.

Uber further asserts that riders utilizing guide dogs or requiring other assistance “deserve a safe, respectful, and welcoming experience with Uber. A complete stop.”

The complaint outlines 17 instances of alleged misconduct involving Uber.

One instance involves JE, a seven-year-old amputee from the Bronx, New York, who reportedly faced refusal from an Uber driver after attending his brother’s birthday party due to his wheelchair.

Another case highlights Jason Ludwig, a Gulf War veteran with a service dog, who was denied a ride to Norfolk Airport in Virginia, causing him to miss his flight and return to Yarmouth, Massachusetts, after 16 hours of travel.

Jeff Clark, a third rider from Mount Laurel, New Jersey, claims that four drivers canceled their ride in Philadelphia within 17 minutes.

The lawsuit aims for an injunction to prevent further violations of the ADA, along with demands for improvements in Uber’s practices and training, financial compensation, and civil penalties.

A spokesperson for the Department of Justice was not available for immediate comment.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Amazon Faces UK Investigation Over Alleged Late Payments to Suppliers

The UK’s grocery watchdog has initiated an investigation into Amazon amid claims that retail and tech firms have been remiss in timely payments to suppliers.

The Groceries Code Adjudicator (GCA) indicated that there was a “reasonable basis” for suspecting Amazon of breaching certain grocery supply codes.

This scrutiny comes nearly a year after the GCA urged online retailers to take “swift and inclusive actions.” to enhance adherence to industry regulations intended to safeguard suppliers.

The GCA oversees the relationship between the 14 largest grocery retailers in the UK and their direct suppliers, which includes major supermarkets like Tesco and Sainsbury’s.

This investigation into Amazon’s grocery sector marks the third since the GCA was established in 2013, following inquiries into Tesco and Co-op. The watchdog has the authority to impose fines of up to 1% of a company’s sales if it is found to have breached grocery codes.

Judge Mark White remarked: “Payment delays can severely damage suppliers. Such allegations could expose Amazon’s suppliers to undue risks and unforeseen costs, potentially hindering their capacity for investment and innovation.”

In the UK, Amazon retails food through its Fresh branded stores and online platforms, in addition to managing the Whole Foods chain, acquired in 2017 for $13.7 billion (£10.2 billion).

According to a GCA survey conducted in 2024, suppliers have reported more issues with Amazon than with other retailers.

Following a warning to Amazon last July, the GCA stated it has been monitoring retailers’ conduct and has gathered detailed testimonies regarding suppliers’ experiences.

On Friday, the GCA noted it has grounds to believe that Amazon violated paragraph 5 of its grocery code between March 1, 2022, and June 20, 2025. However, it intends to concentrate its investigation on the period starting at the beginning of 2024 to gain clearer insights into Amazon’s present practices.

The watchdog is calling on suppliers to submit evidence by August 8th, assuring them that all submissions will remain confidential.

Skip past newsletter promotions

The GCA also stated it has received information about various other concerns related to Amazon, asserting it would “not hesitate” to initiate additional investigations as needed.

In a previous case, the GCA criticized Tesco for its treatment of suppliers after a year-long inquiry but found the Co-op unpunishable in 2015 due to the timing of the alleged misconduct relative to the enhanced powers given to the GCA by the government.

Amazon commented that it takes the groceries code of practice seriously and that it “works closely with the arbitrator.”

A spokesperson stated: “While we are disappointed by this decision, we welcome the chance to further demonstrate our continued compliance with this specific section of the Code.

“We have already made significant improvements to the experience of our grocery suppliers, particularly regarding payment practices.

“We will continue to listen and collaborate with grocery suppliers as we implement further changes.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

Parents file lawsuit against Tiktok for alleged role in child’s death from “Blackout Challenge”

The parents of four teenagers in England have filed a lawsuit against Tiktok following the tragic death of their children.

Isaac Kennevan (13), Archie Buttersby (12), Julian “Juls” Sweeney (14), and 13-year-old Maia Walsh, who rose to fame on social media in 2021, tragically lost their lives in 2022 while attempting a dangerous “challenge,” as stated in the lawsuit.

The Social Media Victims Law Center based in the US lodged a wrongful death lawsuit against Tiktok and its parent company Baitedan on behalf of the grieving parents.

Matthew Bergman, the founding attorney for the Social Media Victims Law Center, revealed, “Three of the four children succumbed to self-stable after being exposed to the hazardous Tiktok Blackout Challenge, all from a similar city and demographic. This does not seem coincidental.”

Bergman further claimed, “Tiktok deliberately targets these vulnerable children with perilous content to boost engagement and profit. The deliberate business decision by Tiktok cost the lives of these four children.”

Tiktok has asserted that searches related to the challenge have been restricted since 2020 and they strive to ban and eliminate harmful content promptly. They also direct users to their safety center if they search for related keywords or videos.

The lawsuit, on behalf of Archie’s mother Holly Dance, Isaac’s mother Lisa Kennevan, Juls’ mother Ellenroom, and Maia’s father Liam Walsh, was filed in the Superior Court of Delaware.

The lawsuit accused Tiktok of marketing itself as a safe and fun platform for children while promoting dangerous and addictive content. Tiktok allegedly engaged children with risky challenges to increase revenue.

Tiktok dismissed claims that they allowed the Blackout Challenge on their platform, asserting that they are actively working to address such issues. However, other perilous challenges involving drugs, hot water, and fire have emerged on Tiktok.

The lawsuit also highlighted that parents believed Tiktok was harmless, catering to children’s entertainment, without anticipating mental health repercussions.

The Social Media Victims Law Center represents families affected by harmful social media content, aiming to prevent the promotion of harmful videos, including those depicting suicide or self-harm, especially among children.

One of the cases involved Tawainna Anderson suing Tiktok in 2022 after her daughter Naira, aged 10, participated in the Blackout Challenge. The appeals court reinstated her case in August 2024.

Archie’s cause of death was determined to be accidental experimentation at his home, with the Blackout Challenge cited as a potential factor among many others.

Juls’ mother is advocating for parents to have legal rights to access their children’s social media accounts following the tragic loss of her son in 2022.

Amendments to the Online Safety Law in the UK aim to compel social media platforms to shield children from dangerous challenges and stunt content while actively eradicating risky material.

Source: www.theguardian.com

The US government’s investigation of NVIDIA for alleged misconduct is justified | Max von Thun

circleWhen a company like computer chip maker Nvidia experiences a significant surge in value within a short period, it catches the attention of investors. However, regulators are also alert, knowing the risks of monopolies stifling competition and manipulating markets. The U.S. Department of Justice, along with other competition authorities and tech watchdogs, suspect Nvidia of employing such tactics to strengthen its chip monopoly. Recently, reports surfaced that the Justice Department would initiate an antitrust investigation. investigationIt's about time.

Before the pandemic, Nvidia was relatively unknown to those outside the realm of video game enthusiasts with high-end gaming computers and consoles featuring powerful Nvidia chips. However, in the era of generative AI, Nvidia has risen to prominence. The fastest growing The greatest companies and their chips of all time Powered Every significant AI milestone (including OpenAI's development of ChatGPT) Two thirds of the AI ​​business tools market.

Generative AI necessitates massive computational power, with Nvidia's GPUs being a preferred choice for these calculations. This alignment between computational needs and Nvidia's chips has significantly contributed to the company's high market capitalization. 30 or more times In just five years, The world's most valuable companies It surpassed Microsoft and Apple earlier this year.

While Nvidia's success is beneficial for investors amid the AI ​​boom, recent stock market fluctuations suggest that the enthusiasm may be excessive. Nvidia should not be faulted for capitalizing on favorable circumstances, but the manner in which a company like Nvidia expands is critical. Unfair practices like driving out competitors, inflating prices, and fortifying monopolies are detrimental to customers, fair competition, and the public interest.

Similar to other tech giants, NVIDIA aims to dominate every market it enters. 88% of the world It also leverages GPUs and holds an edge in AI. Some projections indicate that Nvidia could attain a Trillion Dollar Market within a few years, solidifying its dominance. 98% of the market For data center GPUs.

Despite serving as a vital infrastructure for the AI ​​industry, Nvidia’s market power raises concerns. By amalgamating chips, software, and network services, the company holds a strong position in dictating AI development. This concentration can hinder competition, increase prices, and limit innovation, ultimately harming consumers and fair market practices.

To promote a healthy AI chip market, equitable accessibility to advanced semiconductors is essential. This fosters innovation, supports small businesses, and mitigates potential monopolistic control over the industry. Addressing these issues is crucial to safeguarding fair competition, consumer choice, and overall market resilience against disruptions.

The mounting concentration of the chip market, particularly controlled by Nvidia, warrants caution. As AI regulation initiatives emerge globally, Nvidia’s dominance in supplying high-demand chips places it in a quasi-regulatory role, influencing AI development access. This commercial influence over regulatory matters is concerning, highlighting the need for robust oversight to prevent monopolistic practices.

While Nvidia’s rapid growth is remarkable, it does not absolve the company from potential regulatory scrutiny for its monopoly practices. By leveraging its market power to exclude competitors and strengthen its position, Nvidia jeopardizes healthy competition and public interest. Regulators must act swiftly to prevent Nvidia from repeating the mistakes of past tech giants in dominating markets and stifling innovation.

Source: www.theguardian.com

X, owned by Musk, files lawsuit against Unilever, Mars, and CVS for alleged participation in ‘massive advertiser boycott’

On Tuesday, Elon Musk’s social media platform X filed a lawsuit against a global advertising coalition and several major companies, including Unilever, Mars, and CVS Health. The lawsuit alleges that they illegally conspired to alienate the social network and intentionally cause it to lose revenue, claiming they engaged in a “massive advertiser boycott.”

Company X filed the lawsuit against the World Federation of Advertisers and the companies in federal court in Texas on Tuesday.

“We’ve been trying for peace for 2 years, now it’s war,” Musk tweeted on Tuesday.

The lawsuit claims that advertisers, through the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, withheld “billions of dollars in advertising revenue” from X, violating U.S. antitrust law.

X CEO Linda Yaccarino stated, “When the marketplace of ideas is restricted, people hurt. A few should not have a monopoly on what is monetized.” She expressed concern that the boycott aimed to deprive X of its users.

The World Advertising Federation, Unilever, Mars, CVS Health, and Ørsted did not provide immediate comments on the lawsuit.

X’s advertising revenue declined after Musk acquired the company in 2022. The lawsuit mentions the surge in anti-Semitic content on X following changes made by Musk and a pending trial against Media Matters in April 2025.

The Responsible Media Initiative was launched in 2019 to address harmful content monetization. X claims to meet or exceed the standards set by the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, seeking damages and an injunction to prevent further withholding of advertising dollars.

The complaint alleges that Company X has become less competitive in digital advertising sales.

Source: www.theguardian.com

TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, argues that the US’s alleged discrimination against the popular app is unconstitutional

ByteDance, a Chinese tech company, has filed new legal documents challenging the US government’s “unconstitutional discrimination against TikTok.” These documents also reveal details about failed negotiations regarding a ban on the platform.

A legislation signed by President Joe Biden in April requires ByteDance to sell TikTok’s U.S. assets by Jan. 19 or face a ban. ByteDance argues in its filing that such a sale is “technically, commercially, and legally impossible.” The company accuses the US government of not taking settlement negotiations seriously after 2022.

TikTok, in a lawsuit, states, “Never before has Congress silenced so much speech with a single act.”

The proposed ban reflects long-standing national security concerns from US lawmakers who fear China could exploit the app to access Americans’ data or spy on them. While the Biden administration prefers ByteDance to sell TikTok instead of an outright ban, the company claims it’s not a viable option.

The bill would prevent app stores like Apple and Google from featuring the app unless ByteDance sells it. It would also prohibit internet hosting services from supporting TikTok without a sale, effectively banning its use in the US.

In its filing, ByteDance’s lawyers outline the company’s negotiations with the US government, which abruptly ended in August 2022. The company also shared a redacted draft national security agreement aimed at protecting TikTok’s US user data.


The proposed agreement includes a “kill switch” for the US government to halt TikTok’s use in the US if it doesn’t comply. The US has also requested TikTok to move its source code out of China.

TikTok’s lawyers criticized the administration for favoring shutting down TikTok in the US instead of working on a practical solution to protect US users. The Justice Department defended the law, saying it addresses national security concerns while respecting constitutional constraints.

TikTok and ByteDance filed a lawsuit in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Sept. 16. The outcome of the case could influence the government’s use of new powers against foreign-owned apps.

TikTok argues that separating businesses is not feasible and claims the law violates free speech rights. The platform’s content creators maintain that there is no imminent national security threat, as the law allows TikTok to operate for the remainder of the year.

Source: www.theguardian.com

US and UK impose sanctions on Chinese state-sponsored hackers for alleged ‘malicious’ cyber attacks

Accusations have been made against hackers supported by Chinese government spy agencies by the United States and Britain for executing a prolonged cyberattack campaign aimed at politicians, journalists, and businesses.

The US disclosed that the operation was directed at political dissidents and critics of China through sophisticated phishing campaigns, leading to the compromise of certain email systems and networks.

Sanctions were imposed by the US government on the suspected hackers behind the scheme on Monday. The UK has sanctioned two individuals and a front company associated with APT31, a cyber espionage group connected to China’s Ministry of State Security.

On Tuesday, New Zealand’s government conveyed concerns to the Chinese government regarding its involvement in attacks targeting the country’s parliamentary institutions in 2021.

The US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control announced sanctions against Wuhan Xiaoruizhi Technology Co., described as a front for China’s Ministry of National Security, for being involved in multiple malicious cyber operations.

In a press release and an unsealed indictment, the US government accused China of running an extensive state-sponsored hacking program dating back over a decade. US Attorney General Merrick Garland mentioned that the hacking operation revealed the Chinese government’s intention to target and intimidate its critics.

The Treasury Department identified two Chinese nationals affiliated with a Wuhan company, Zhao Guangzong and Ni Gaobin, for engaging in cyber operations targeting critical US infrastructure sectors. These threats were attributed to the cyber hacking group APT 31, known as “Advanced Persistent Threat” and comprising state-sponsored contract hackers and operatives.

The department stated, “APT 31 targets a wide range of US government officials and their advisors crucial to US national security.”

Zhao, Ni, and five other hackers have been charged by the US Department of Justice with computer intrusion and conspiracy to commit wire fraud for their involvement in a 14-year cyber operation targeting US and foreign critics, businesses, and political officials.

Assistant Secretary Matthew G. Olsen highlighted the necessity to remain vigilant against cybersecurity threats and cyber-enabled foreign influence activities, especially as the 2024 election cycle approaches.

The hacking campaign entailed sending over 10,000 malicious emails containing hidden tracking links allowing APT 31 access to information about the target, including location and IP address. Emails were focused on government officials worldwide critical of China’s policy.

UK authorities also impose sanctions

British officials indicated that those sanctioned by the state had raised concerns about threats from China and a hack that potentially accessed data on tens of millions of British voters held by the Electoral Commission. They mentioned being responsible for a cyber espionage operation targeting members of Congress.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs clarified that the hacking of the electoral register did not impact the electoral process, rights of individuals, or electoral registration access.

British cybersecurity officials accused hackers linked to the Chinese government of conducting reconnaissance on British MPs critical of the Chinese government in 2021, with no successful infections reported among the MPs.

Additionally, three MPs, including former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith, disclosed being subjected to harassment, impersonation, and attempted hacking from China. They are part of the Inter-Parliamentary Union on China, focused on countering Beijing’s influence.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Apple faces full-scale lawsuit from US over alleged smartphone market monopoly

The U.S. government initiated a significant antitrust lawsuit against Apple on Thursday, alleging that the tech giant impeded competition by limiting access to its software and hardware. The lawsuit challenges Apple’s core products and practices, including iMessage and the interconnectivity of iPhone and Apple Watch.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in New Jersey, asserts that Apple holds monopolistic power in the smartphone market and engages in “pervasive, persistent, and unlawful” conduct to maintain its dominance. It seeks to “free the smartphone market” from Apple’s anti-competitive behavior and claims that the company stifles innovation.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland stated, “Apple’s illegal conduct has helped them remain in power, threatening the free and fair markets essential to our economy.”

The Department of Justice’s case against Apple is a significant legal action against the world’s most valuable publicly traded company. It follows similar antitrust cases targeting major tech firms like Amazon, Meta, and Google, which have faced scrutiny for consolidating power and stifling competition.

Apple denies the allegations, arguing that the lawsuit jeopardizes their core business and principles that set their products apart in a competitive market.

The lawsuit questions whether Apple’s practices of limiting rivals’ access to proprietary features like iMessage and Siri constitute anti-competitive behavior. It investigates whether Apple’s closed ecosystem creates unreasonable barriers for competitors.

The complaint accuses Apple of anti-competitive actions such as blocking innovative apps, restricting third-party digital wallets, and limiting cross-platform messaging. These actions allegedly inhibit competition and increase prices for consumers.

The lawsuit aims to change Apple’s practices and impose fines for their actions. It seeks to prevent Apple from strengthening its monopoly and using its app store and private APIs to hinder cross-platform technology distribution.

Apple, as a dominant force in the smartphone market, has faced criticism for its closed ecosystem. Rival companies view Apple’s features as creating a walled garden that limits consumer choice and competition.

The lawsuit highlights Apple’s clash with startup Beeper, which attempted to enable non-iPhone users to access iMessage. Beeper’s struggles with Apple exemplify the challenges faced by smaller competitors against tech giants.

The legal action against Apple is part of a broader crackdown on anticompetitive behavior by major tech companies. Regulators in both the U.S. and Europe have been investigating and pursuing cases against tech giants to promote fair competition.

European regulators, in particular, have fined Apple for anti-competitive practices. The investigation stemmed from complaints that Apple’s restrictions on its app store harmed other music streaming providers.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Tesla facing lawsuit from 25 California counties over alleged mishandling of hazardous waste

A group of 25 California counties has sued Elon Musk’s Tesla, accusing the electric car maker of mishandling hazardous waste at its facilities in the state.

The lawsuits from Los Angeles, Alameda, San Joaquin, San Francisco and other counties were filed Tuesday in California state court. The company is seeking civil penalties and an injunction that would require it to properly dispose of its waste in the future.


Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The counties accused Tesla of violating the state’s Unfair Business Practices Act and Hazardous Waste Management Act by improperly labeling the waste and sending the material to landfills that cannot accept hazardous materials. California’s Hazardous Waste Management Act can result in civil penalties of as much as $70,000 per day for each violation.

The waste generated or processed at the facility includes paint materials, brake fluid, used batteries, antifreeze, diesel fuel and more, according to the county.

The complaint alleges violations occur at 101 facilities, including Tesla’s manufacturing plant in Fremont. Spokespeople for each county did not immediately provide additional details about the incident.

The lawsuit is not the first time Tesla has faced allegations related to its hazardous waste management practices.

The company reached a settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2019 over alleged federal hazardous waste violations at its Fremont plant. In that agreement, Tesla agreed to take steps to properly manage waste within its facilities. and pay a $31,000 fine..

Tesla subsequently filed a lawsuit with the Environmental Protection Agency in 2022 after federal officials alleged it failed to maintain records and implement plans to minimize air pollutants from paint operations at its Fremont factory. They reached an agreement and agreed to pay a penalty of $275,000.

Source: www.theguardian.com

VF Corp., owner of Vans and Supreme, reports stolen personal information and affected orders in alleged ransomware attack

US-based VF Corporation, which owns apparel brands such as Vans, Supreme and The North Face, said a cyberattack affected its ability to fulfill orders ahead of Christmas, one of the year’s biggest retail events. admitted that he had caused it.

A company based in Denver, Colorado said in a filing with federal regulators. The cyberattack, which the company first detected on December 13, was a ransom attack in which hackers “disrupted the company’s operations by encrypting some IT systems and stole data, including personal data, from the company.” It was said that it was hinting at a software attack.

As a result, the company says its operations continue to be disrupted, including its “ability to fulfill orders.”

When TechCrunch tried to place an order on Vans’ website, he was greeted with the following message: You will be notified by email when your item is shipped and can track it with the sender. ”

VF Corporation said in a filing that the retail stores it operates around the world are open and consumers can purchase available products online. It is unclear when orders will be shipped, and a company spokesperson did not provide a timeline.

VF Corp. spokesperson Colin Wheeler provided TechCrunch via email with a statement reflecting the company’s regulatory filings. The company did not respond to TechCrunch’s questions about the incident. Reveal whether the company received a ransom demand from hackers.

The company has not yet disclosed how it was breached, what type of data was accessed, or how many individuals were affected by the breach, including employees, customers, or both. . It’s also unclear who is behind the attack, with the ransomware group being tracked yet to claim responsibility.

VF Corp. warned in a regulatory filing that the cyberattack would have a “significant impact” on its business until its systems are restored. “As the investigation into the incident is ongoing, the full scope, nature and impact of the incident is not yet known,” the filing states.

VF Corp disclosed the incident on the same day that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s new data breach disclosure rules went into effect. This regulation means that organizations must report cybersecurity incidents, including data breaches, to federal securities regulators. within 4 business days.

Source: techcrunch.com