It's showing up as a claim on BianLian's site. I think @amvinfe is still trying to get BianLian to provide some proof of claims.
Akumin is not doing itself any favors by ignoring multiple inquiries about this. They should either deny it or say they are investigating or ... something. But sticking your head in the sand and not answering at all is not a good look.
As @Dissent wrote, I'm waiting for concrete evidence on what BianLian said. I have no reason not to believe the ransomware group, they wouldn't have the reason.
Regarding Akumin's silence, I agree with @Dissent, silence can be more deafening than a thousand words and often, in the end, it can do much more damage.
It seems pretty clear from what BianLian has posted that there were TWO unrelated attacks, but Akumin has only disclosed the first attack -- even though it has issued updates since the time of the second attack.
That said: if the second attack was in November, as it allegedly was, then Akumin is still within a 60-day window from discovery to when it must notify HHS and affected patients.
But if an entity issues a press release or update that discloses one data breach but is silent on the fact that there was a second breach, too, resulting in the theft of patient data, is that a deceptive or unfair act under Section 5 of the FTC Act?
Add comment