Business continuity planning used to be considered an internal IT concern. But in today’s environment—shaped by cyber threats, operational complexity, and tightening regulations—continuity is now a compliance requirement. If your organization operates in a regulated industry like healthcare, finance, or legal, regulators expect more than backups. They expect documented plans, tested procedures, and evidence that your systems can recover quickly in the event of disruption.

Regulatory compliance frameworks—from HIPAA and GLBA to client-driven SLA audits—require businesses to demonstrate how they’ll maintain secure access to critical systems and data during outages, cyberattacks, or infrastructure failures. That demand is pushing organizations to rethink how they approach disaster recovery and operational risk.

By aligning your business continuity planning with compliance mandates, you reduce exposure, improve resilience, and gain the confidence to navigate audits and crises alike. Solutions like Recovery+ can help bridge the gap—delivering not only the tools to recover, but also the documentation to prove you can.

Continuity Is a Compliance Expectation—Not a Recommendation

Compliance regulators no longer view business continuity as optional. In the healthcare space, for example, the HIPAA Security Rule mandates that covered entities implement a contingency plan that includes backup procedures, disaster recovery strategies, and emergency access protocols for electronic protected health information (ePHI).

As noted in the HIPAA Journal’s coverage, failure to plan for system outages or data recovery events constitutes a direct violation of the law. Simply having backups isn’t enough—you must demonstrate how they work, how fast you can recover, and who is responsible during an emergency.

The same is true in finance. Institutions governed by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA) are required to maintain safeguards that include recovery capabilities. And in legal services, business continuity expectations are increasingly written into contracts, especially when handling sensitive or confidential client information.

In each of these cases, regulators and clients aren’t just asking, “Do you have a backup?” They’re asking, “Can you recover the right data, fast enough, with proof?”

What a Compliance-Ready Continuity Plan Looks Like

To meet compliance expectations, a continuity plan must go beyond IT best practices. It must be documented, tested, and aligned with risk. A compliance-ready plan includes:

• Recovery Time Objectives (RTO) – Maximum acceptable downtime for each system or service.
• Recovery Point Objectives (RPO) – Maximum data loss tolerance, often in hours or minutes.
• Data Backup Policies – Frequency, retention, encryption standards, and offsite replication.
• System Restoration Procedures – Step-by-step instructions for restoring servers, applications, and cloud services.
• Roles and Responsibilities – Who initiates the plan, who communicates status updates, and who manages technical tasks.
• Testing & Maintenance Schedule – Evidence of plan testing and version control for updates.

If your continuity documentation can’t answer these questions quickly—or worse, doesn’t exist—you may not be in compliance.

The Operational Risks of Poor Planning

Without a compliance-aligned plan, disruptions often last longer, cause more damage, and invite legal scrutiny. Even brief outages can have cascading effects—lost data, missed transactions, and customer dissatisfaction. But beyond the immediate consequences, the long-term risk is legal and reputational damage.

Consider these common gaps that surface during audits or incidents:

• No documented recovery workflows for mission-critical systems
• Backups that are stored locally, without offsite or cloud redundancy
• Disaster recovery plans that haven’t been tested in over a year
• Lack of version control or audit trail for continuity documentation
• No role clarity—staff unsure who does what in an emergency

These aren’t just operational oversights. In regulated industries, they’re compliance failures—and they can lead to fines, lawsuits, or client attrition.

Why Backup Alone Isn’t Enough

There’s a big difference between backing up data and being able to recover it in a compliant way. A full backup that takes 24 hours to restore may not meet your defined RTO. A local backup that gets encrypted by ransomware is worthless. And a backup that can’t be validated or documented might as well not exist during an audit.

That’s why organizations are turning to full-service solutions like Recovery+, which pairs high-performance disaster recovery infrastructure with compliance-grade reporting and support.

How Recovery+ Helps Meet Compliance Standards

At Cost+, our Recovery+ platform was built to meet both the technical and regulatory demands of modern business continuity. It’s more than a backup service—it’s a managed recovery framework with built-in documentation, encryption, and audit readiness.

Key features include:

• Encrypted backups stored in redundant, geographically separated environments
• Defined and tracked RTO/RPO metrics for each system
• Automated testing of backup integrity and system recovery
• Role-based access controls and event logging for audit transparency
• Reporting templates that support HIPAA, GLBA, and client security reviews

Whether you’re preparing for a formal audit, a due diligence request, or internal risk assessment, Recovery+ gives you the tools—and the proof—to show you’re prepared.

Industries Where Continuity and Compliance Collide

Some industries are more exposed than others when it comes to continuity risk. If your business operates in any of these sectors, a compliance-aligned recovery plan should be non-negotiable:

• Healthcare – HIPAA, HITECH, and patient care continuity requirements
• Finance – GLBA, PCI-DSS, SOX, and consumer data integrity
• Legal – Contractual obligations and client confidentiality expectations
• Insurance – Policyholder data protection and regulatory disclosure rules
• Education – FERPA, grant compliance, and sensitive student data

Each of these industries faces increased risk—not just from data loss, but from failed expectations around service availability and compliance deliverables.

Making the Case for Audit-Ready Recovery

In many organizations, continuity planning is still viewed as a low-priority IT function. That mindset needs to change. Recovery should be treated as a strategic capability—one that reduces downtime, meets client expectations, and satisfies regulatory audits without scrambling.

If your business continuity plan can’t be tested, can’t be documented, and can’t deliver fast, secure restoration, it’s not just a technical risk—it’s a compliance liability. With Recovery+, businesses can move from guesswork to confidence, knowing their continuity strategy holds up both in practice and under audit.

Final Thought: Compliance Without Recovery Is Incomplete

Protecting your business from operational risk means having the ability to recover—fully, quickly, and with traceability. Compliance frameworks have recognized this, and now your business continuity plan must rise to meet the same standard.

With Recovery+, you’re not just checking a box. You’re building a recovery process that’s measurable, testable, and aligned with the laws that govern your industry. It’s how modern businesses protect their data, their people, and their reputation—before something goes wrong.

By Thomas McDonald
Vice President

As businesses embrace tools like Microsoft Copilot and ChatGPT for communication, a new layer of concern has emerged—ai email legal risk. While AI tools can streamline productivity, they also introduce potential liability in areas like defamation, intellectual property, and privacy law. Business owners need to understand what’s at stake when machine-generated content becomes part of their daily operations.

What Could Go Wrong?

AI-generated emails may seem polished, but they can still include inaccuracies, biased language, or improperly reused content. If your business sends out information generated by AI without proper oversight, you may be held responsible—even if the mistake wasn’t written by a human employee. This includes statements that could be interpreted as defamatory, violate copyright laws, or disclose confidential or protected information.

Top Legal Risks to Watch

• Defamation: If an AI-generated message includes false or damaging claims about a person or company, your business may be liable—even if there was no intent to harm.
• Copyright Infringement: AI tools may unknowingly replicate phrases, ideas, or materials that are under copyright protection, opening you to legal action.
• Data Privacy Violations: Emails that disclose personal information about employees or clients may breach regulations like GDPR, HIPAA, or the CCPA.
• Misrepresentation: If AI creates inaccurate claims in marketing or sales emails, this can lead to regulatory scrutiny or legal disputes.

Real-World Examples

In one case, a law firm’s automated follow-up emails—written by AI—incorrectly implied that a client had missed a payment deadline. The client sued for defamation, claiming reputational damage. In another instance, a company using generative AI received a cease-and-desist letter after AI-created marketing content closely resembled material from a competitor’s campaign.

Best Practices for Business Leaders

1. Always Review Before Sending

Never allow AI-generated emails to be sent without human review. Designate responsible team members to edit and approve content—especially anything external-facing.

2. Train Your Team on Risk Awareness

Ensure employees understand the limitations of AI. Conduct training to help staff identify red flags, including misleading statements, confidential data, or legal gray areas.

3. Keep Records of AI Outputs

Maintain an archive of AI prompts and generated content. If legal issues arise, you’ll want a full audit trail to demonstrate your review process and intent.

4. Disclose When Appropriate

In certain industries, it may be necessary—or simply good practice—to disclose when content is AI-assisted. This can build trust with clients and reduce risk.

5. Avoid Using AI for Sensitive Topics

Do not rely on AI tools to draft emails involving legal, financial, HR, or regulatory content. These areas carry too much nuance and liability to automate without oversight.

Helpful Resource

For a legal perspective on these risks, this article from Keystone Law provides a valuable overview of AI liability in professional communication:
The Risks of AI for Business

Where Cost+ Can Help

Through Security+, Cost+ helps companies establish safe AI usage policies, train staff, and audit communication practices to stay ahead of emerging risks.

Bottom Line

The rise of AI in business communication introduces both opportunity and risk. By understanding and addressing ai email legal risk, your company can benefit from efficiency gains without exposing itself to costly legal exposure.

By Thomas McDonald
Vice President

New York cyber reporting law alert! In a major shift that sets the tone for national cybersecurity policy, New York State has passed legislation requiring all local governments and public authorities to report cyberattacks within 72 hours and disclose ransomware payments within just 24 hours. This groundbreaking law—signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on June 26, 2025—represents a growing recognition of the urgent need for cyber transparency, resilience, and coordinated response.

Why This Law Matters

Cyberattacks against municipalities have surged in recent years, often exploiting weak infrastructure, outdated systems, and underfunded security programs. With local governments controlling critical infrastructure—from public schools and utilities to transit and healthcare systems—the risk of disruption has never been greater.

By mandating strict disclosure timelines, New York is effectively forcing a culture shift in how organizations prepare for, detect, and recover from attacks. In particular, this law shines a spotlight on ransomware—a tactic that continues to dominate headlines and cost millions in recovery and downtime.

What Organizations Need to Do

If your business or partners work with or alongside public agencies in New York, this law may affect your operations directly or indirectly. Organizations should:

• Ensure cyber incidents are identified and escalated within hours—not days.
• Have clearly documented disaster recovery and incident response plans.
• Prepare executives and legal teams to handle ransomware payment disclosures within 24 hours.
• Deploy advanced detection systems such as endpoint protection and network monitoring.
• Regularly test and update policies with simulated tabletop exercises.

Implications Beyond Public Sector

While the law targets public entities, it sets a precedent that private businesses would be wise to follow voluntarily. Regulatory bodies at the federal level are likely to mirror these expectations in future legislation. Cyber insurance underwriters may also start to weigh reporting preparedness more heavily in risk models.

From a supply chain perspective, failure to rapidly disclose or respond to a breach could impact vendor relationships, insurance coverage, and customer trust. Organizations of all sizes should view this law as a benchmark—not a boundary.

How Cost+ Helps You Stay Compliant and Resilient

At Cost+, we support businesses in building strong cyber foundations through a layered and affordable approach. Our Recovery+, Security+, and Compliance+ services are designed to help you prevent attacks, prepare for the worst, and respond with confidence if an incident occurs.

We also offer free assessments, including:

• Free Security Check
• Cost Check+ to help you evaluate and streamline your IT expenses

Final Thoughts

New York’s new cyber reporting law isn’t just about compliance—it’s about preparedness. In a world where ransomware groups move faster than legislation, every hour counts. The organizations that succeed won’t be the ones who scramble after an incident—they’ll be the ones who plan before it happens.

Now is the time to align your security posture with tomorrow’s regulations—before they become mandates.

Cost+ is local to New York City and we’re happy to stop by in person to help with all aspects of IT. From support to cyber security. Offices located in New Jersey, Florida and Arizona. To schedule a consultation or learn more, contact Cost+ today.

By Thomas McDonald
Vice President

The rise of generative AI in the workplace is transforming productivity—but it’s also quietly introducing serious compliance risks. From finance and healthcare to legal and insurance, employees across industries are increasingly turning to tools like ChatGPT, Copilot, and Bard without proper oversight. When these tools are used to process sensitive data, the consequences can be far-reaching, particularly for organizations subject to regulatory frameworks like HIPAA, GDPR, GLBA, and SOX.

How Generative AI Is Slipping Through the Cracks

Many employees see AI tools as convenient assistants: summarizing documents, answering emails, generating reports. But in the rush to embrace efficiency, few stop to consider whether using these tools aligns with corporate data policies or regulatory obligations.

Consider these increasingly common scenarios:

• A legal assistant pastes a confidential case summary into an AI tool to draft a client letter.
• A healthcare provider uses an AI chatbot to rewrite a patient care note.
• A financial analyst uploads internal spreadsheets into Copilot to generate forecasts.

In each case, data that may be regulated, proprietary, or subject to audit trails is being transmitted to third-party systems—without proper logging, encryption controls, or clear knowledge of where it’s stored or who has access.

This is not just a data governance issue; it’s a compliance landmine. If your organization is audited and cannot account for where sensitive information went, the liability may be significant—even if there was no malicious intent.

Regulatory Consequences Are Catching Up

Until recently, regulators had not directly addressed generative AI usage. That’s changing. Authorities are beginning to scrutinize how AI tools process sensitive data, whether companies have visibility into their usage, and whether sufficient safeguards are in place.

For example, in the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced enforcement actions against companies misrepresenting AI capabilities and misusing consumer data. The initiative, called Operation AI Comply, signals that regulators are paying close attention to how AI is deployed—and how it impacts compliance with privacy and security laws.

Internationally, the European Union’s GDPR requires that data processors disclose automated decision-making practices, retain auditability, and obtain proper consent—criteria that many AI tools struggle to meet when used informally within companies. HIPAA-regulated entities, meanwhile, are prohibited from disclosing protected health information (PHI) to third parties unless under strict business associate agreements—something most AI vendors do not offer by default.

The regulatory environment is evolving quickly, and non-compliance—intentional or not—can lead to fines, sanctions, or reputational damage.

What Business Leaders Can Do Now

Compliance is not about halting innovation—it’s about guiding it. To responsibly embrace AI in the workplace, organizations need to implement clear guardrails and visibility mechanisms. Here are immediate steps to consider:

• Create an Acceptable Use Policy for AI Tools: Define which tools are approved, how they can be used, and what data types are prohibited from being input.
• Educate Employees: Ensure staff understand the risks of pasting sensitive data into AI platforms. Training should cover regulatory exposure and corporate policies.
• Implement Monitoring Solutions: Use endpoint protection, DLP (data loss prevention), or firewall controls to detect unauthorized AI traffic or data exfiltration.
• Work With Legal and Compliance Teams: Before adopting new AI platforms, conduct thorough risk assessments and ensure alignment with internal controls and applicable laws.
• Review Vendor Agreements: If employees are using AI tools that store or process company data, you must review the tool’s data handling, retention, and sharing practices.

Importantly, organizations should not rely solely on user discretion. Even well-intentioned employees can create compliance issues if they don’t understand the implications of using unsanctioned tools.

Looking Ahead

AI is here to stay—but blind adoption is not sustainable. Compliance frameworks are evolving, and enforcement actions will likely target companies that failed to take proactive steps. The time to put controls in place is before a breach, not after.

Executives, IT leaders, and compliance officers should treat uncontrolled AI usage as they would any other systemic risk: monitor it, educate stakeholders, and take decisive steps to mitigate exposure. Doing nothing is not a neutral position—it’s a liability.

Schedule a Free Compliance Review

If your organization is unsure how to govern employee use of AI tools, Cost+ offers Compliance+ services to help. We can assess your current policies, review your tech stack, and recommend the safeguards needed to protect your business. Schedule a free consultation today.