Regulators are increasingly focused not just on what data companies collect—but how long they keep it.

Data Hoarding Carries Risk
Many organizations default to keeping everything: emails, customer records, internal files, and application logs. But retaining unnecessary or outdated data creates liability. It expands the scope of compliance obligations, increases the potential impact of a breach, and complicates legal discovery.

As cybersecurity threats evolve and regulations tighten, regulators are scrutinizing whether businesses have clear, defensible data retention policies in place—and whether they’re actually following them.

Growing Pressure Across Regulated Industries
Healthcare, finance, education, and legal services all face heightened expectations to enforce structured retention periods. HIPAA, GLBA, and state-level privacy laws increasingly require companies to dispose of personal information once it is no longer needed for the purpose it was collected.

Auditors and regulators are asking not just “What data do you have?” but “Why do you still have it?”

Elements of a Modern Data Retention Policy
An effective retention policy balances compliance, legal, and business needs. Core components typically include:

• Defined retention periods for each category of data

• Secure deletion protocols with audit trails

• Clear roles and responsibilities for enforcement

• Documentation of exceptions and review processes

These policies are not set-it-and-forget-it. They must evolve with changing laws, business operations, and technology platforms. Failure to maintain current policies—let alone follow them—can increase exposure during audits, investigations, or litigation.

A Compliance Priority, Not Just a Technical Task
Retention planning is often treated as an IT issue, but regulators view it as a compliance and governance obligation. The consequences of over-retention can be significant: higher discovery costs in legal disputes, larger breach notification lists, and more regulatory scrutiny.

Even small businesses are now expected to show that they are limiting data exposure through active retention management—not just good intentions.

Schedule Your Free Consultation Today
Want to make sure your retention policy stands up to regulatory expectations? Schedule a free consultation with our Compliance+ team.

In today’s regulatory environment, your business is only as secure as the vendors you trust.

Regulatory Pressure Is Increasing—And So Are Third-Party Expectations
For many companies, compliance used to be an internal concern. But that’s no longer the case. Regulators now expect businesses to evaluate the cybersecurity posture, privacy practices, and operational resilience of every third-party vendor they work with—especially those with access to sensitive data or business-critical systems.

Whether it’s a cloud provider, software vendor, payment processor, or outsourced IT support team, the risks are real. According to the Ponemon Institute, 51% of data breaches in the last year involved a third party.

Federal and state regulations—from HIPAA and GLBA to the FTC Safeguards Rule—have updated requirements that make vendor risk management a formal part of compliance. It’s not enough to have a signed contract or a SOC 2 report on file. Companies must demonstrate they’ve done due diligence, implemented appropriate controls, and continue to monitor third-party performance over time.

Key Elements of a Vendor Risk Management Program
A mature vendor risk management (VRM) program includes several core components:

• Initial Risk Assessments: Evaluating each vendor’s access, data handling practices, and security controls.

• Contractual Protections: Ensuring contracts contain security obligations, breach notification timelines, and audit rights.

• Ongoing Monitoring: Reviewing vendors annually, tracking compliance, and documenting any incidents.

• Offboarding Procedures: Ensuring secure data return or destruction when a relationship ends.

Too often, businesses rely on outdated spreadsheets or informal processes that can’t scale—or survive an audit. And without a clear framework, even well-meaning companies can miss warning signs that a vendor poses a growing risk.

Compliance+ Helps You Build a Defensible Program
At Cost+, our Compliance+ service is designed to help you implement and maintain a vendor risk management program that meets regulatory expectations and reduces business exposure.

We assist with vendor classification, policy creation, risk assessments, and documentation—ensuring your program aligns with today’s compliance standards.

For companies without internal compliance teams, or those needing to modernize outdated processes, we provide the tools and expertise to close the gap and protect your business from third-party fallout.

Schedule Your Free Consultation Today
Learn how Cost+ can help you build a stronger vendor risk program—book your free consultation with our Compliance+ team today.

A structured look at how to align IT recovery planning with compliance standards in healthcare, legal, financial, and other regulated industries.

Regulators expect more than backups

Many organizations assume that having a backup system is enough to satisfy compliance requirements. But most regulatory frameworks—including HIPAA, SOX, and GLBA—expect documented recovery strategies that account for more than just data preservation.

What regulators want to see is evidence that your organization can restore systems, continue operations, and minimize disruption. That means showing not only that you have backups, but that they’re tested, time-bound, and tied to business functions.

Key components of a compliant recovery plan

A recovery plan that satisfies regulatory scrutiny typically includes:

• Defined recovery time objectives (RTO) and recovery point objectives (RPO) for each major system

• A clear inventory of systems, data classifications, and dependencies

• Assigned roles and responsibilities for recovery procedures and decision-making

• Backup and restore testing schedules with documentation of successful outcomes

• Plans for communication, both internally and externally, during extended outages

• Procedures for reviewing and updating the plan on a regular basis

These elements show regulators that the plan is not theoretical. It’s operational, maintained, and connected to business impact.

Avoiding common pitfalls

Many plans fail under scrutiny because they exist only as documents—not as active strategies. Some are written once and never updated. Others omit testing or rely on assumptions that don’t reflect current systems or staffing.

A common issue is mismatched expectations. For example, a system might be labeled “critical,” but the backup cadence or RTO doesn’t reflect that designation. In a review, that inconsistency raises questions about how decisions were made—and whether recovery is truly viable.

Overreliance on cloud platforms is another concern. While cloud services often include built-in redundancy, they don’t eliminate the need for your organization to define recovery roles, test accessibility, or document processes. Compliance responsibility isn’t outsourced.

Make recovery planning part of operational discipline

Recovery planning isn’t just a compliance exercise—it’s a resilience strategy. Organizations that treat recovery as an operational discipline are better prepared for both audits and real-world disruption.

That preparation includes maintaining current documentation, testing procedures regularly, and integrating recovery considerations into IT purchasing and infrastructure decisions. When a disruption occurs, or when a regulator asks for evidence, the readiness is already built in.

A grounded explanation of how technology systems support HIPAA compliance and what organizations must implement to avoid exposure.

Compliance goes beyond paperwork

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) requires covered entities and business associates to protect sensitive health information—both in storage and in transit. While policies and training are essential, technology plays a central role in meeting compliance requirements.

That role is often misunderstood. HIPAA doesn’t mandate specific vendors or tools, but it does require organizations to implement safeguards that meet its security rule standards. These aren’t suggestions—they’re baseline expectations.

The key technical safeguards

HIPAA’s security rule outlines three types of safeguards: administrative, physical, and technical. For IT teams, the technical safeguards are the most operationally relevant. These include:

• Access control: Ensuring only authorized users can access systems containing electronic protected health information (ePHI)

• Audit controls: Maintaining logs that track who accessed data, when, and what actions were taken

• Integrity controls: Preventing unauthorized alterations to data

• Transmission security: Encrypting ePHI when it’s sent over a network

• Authentication: Verifying that a person or system accessing ePHI is who they claim to be

These controls must be in place whether the data resides on local servers, in cloud platforms, or within third-party systems. Organizations are responsible for all systems that store, process, or transmit ePHI.

Common gaps that lead to risk

HIPAA violations often result not from deliberate negligence, but from incomplete implementations. Some organizations have access control in theory but no system to enforce it. Others have encryption enabled for email but not for backups. Logging is sometimes enabled, but logs are not retained or reviewed.

Another common gap is vendor oversight. Organizations may assume that using a HIPAA-compliant cloud service transfers responsibility—but HIPAA requires shared responsibility. If your configuration is weak or unmonitored, the liability remains yours.

Without regular assessments and technical documentation, it’s difficult to prove compliance or detect violations. That lack of visibility can become a serious risk during a breach investigation.

Compliance is ongoing, not one-time

HIPAA compliance is not a certification or a product—it’s a posture. Systems evolve, staff change, and threats adapt. Maintaining compliance requires continuous oversight, regular risk assessments, and active remediation when gaps are found.

Organizations that treat HIPAA as a living requirement—integrated into IT operations rather than siloed in policy documents—are better positioned to stay compliant and avoid penalties.

A grounded look at how insurance carriers assess cybersecurity preparedness—and what legal practices should have in place.

Cyber insurance is now a business standard

As cyberattacks on law firms continue to rise, carriers have tightened underwriting requirements. Premiums have increased, exclusions are more common, and claims are scrutinized. Carriers now expect firms to demonstrate that they understand the risks and have implemented basic controls.

This shift reflects the growing overlap between IT infrastructure and professional liability. A firm’s ability to secure data, respond to incidents, and prove that reasonable precautions were in place directly affects insurability.

What carriers often expect to see

Most applications today include security questionnaires or require attestations. Law firmsLegal & Law Firms are often asked to provide evidence of:

• Multifactor authentication (MFA) for email, remote access, and administrative logins

• Regular offsite backups with test logs and recovery capabilities

• Endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools deployed across systems

• Documented incident response plans and basic staff training

• Email filtering or threat protection services

In some cases, carriers conduct external vulnerability scans. An exposed remote desktop port, an unpatched system, or a misconfigured mail record can influence underwriting decisions—or halt the process entirely.

Insurance exclusions tied to cybersecurity failures

What’s changing is not just how carriers evaluate risk, but how they assign blame. A growing number of policies include language that limits or voids coverage if required security controls were not implemented at the time of the incident.

For example, if a law firm suffers a breach and cannot show evidence of functioning MFA, an active backup, or a basic monitoring system, the carrier may deny the claim. These denials typically cite misrepresentation or failure to meet policy conditions.

Preparing for review and renewal

Firms that have not recently evaluated their security posture should consider doing so well before the next renewal. This may involve updating internal documentation, replacing outdated tools, or reviewing coverage language to understand what’s required.

Security standards are no longer a suggestion—they are a prerequisite for coverage. Law firms that treat cybersecurity as a compliance issue, rather than a technical one, will be better positioned to maintain coverage and reduce exposure.