he California Attorney General’s office has announced a settlement with the Walt Disney Co., resolving allegations that the company violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) by failing to answer consumers’ requests to opt-out of the sale or sharing of their data across all devices and streaming services associated with consumers’ Disney accounts. Under the settlement, Disney must pay $2.75 million in civil penalties and must implement opt-out methods that fully stop Disney’s sale or sharing of consumers’ personal information.

The California Department of Justice’s investigation into Disney stems from a January 2024 investigative sweep of streaming services for potential CCPA violations. Effective opt-out is one of the requirements of complying with CCPA. The investigation found that Disney’s opt-out processes did not allow a consumer to completely opt-out of and stop all sale or sharing of their data, in violation of the CCPA.

“Consumers shouldn’t have to go to infinity and beyond to assert their privacy rights. Today, my office secured the largest settlement to date under the CCPA over Disney’s failure to stop selling and sharing the data of consumers that explicitly asked it to,” said Attorney General Bonta. “California’s nation-leading privacy law is clear: A consumer’s opt-out right applies wherever and however a business sells data — businesses can’t force people to go device-by-device or service-by-service. In California, asking a business to stop selling your data should not be complicated or cumbersome.”

The investigation found that each of the methods Disney provided had gaps that allowed Disney to continue to sell and share consumers’ data, including:

Opt-Out Toggles: If a user requested to opt-out of the sale or sharing of their data via an opt-out toggle in Disney’s websites and apps, Disney only applied the request to the specific streaming service the user was watching, and often only the specific device the consumer was using. This meant that in most instances, using the toggle would not stop selling or sharing from other devices or services connected to the consumer’s account.

Webform: If a user opted out using Disney’s webform, Disney only stopped the sharing of personal data through the company’s own advertising platform and offerings. However, Disney continued to sell and share consumer data with specific third-party ad-tech companies whose code Disney embedded in its websites and apps. Disney also failed to provide an in-app, opt-out method in many of its connected TV streaming apps, instead directing consumers to its webform, effectively leaving consumers with no way to stop Disney’s selling and sharing from these apps.

The Global Privacy Control: For consumers who opted out via the Global Privacy Control (GPC), Disney limited the request to the specific device the consumer was using, even when the consumer was logged into their account. The GPC is an easy-to-use ‘stop selling or sharing my data switch’ that is available on some internet browsers or as a browser extension.

About the California Consumer Protection Act

The CCPA has opened up a whole new world of privacy protection and increased privacy rights for California consumers, such as the right to know how businesses collect, share, and disclose their personal information. The CCPA vests California consumers with control over the personal information that businesses collect about them, including the right to request that businesses stop selling or sharing their personal information.

Today’s settlement represents the seventh enforcement action under the CCPA. The Attorney General’s office has also announced settlements with Sephora and DoorDash as well as mobile app gaming company, Jam City; streaming service, Sling TV; website publisher, Healthline.com; and entertainment company, Tilting Point Media. In order to monitor the businesses’ compliance with the CCPA, Attorney General Bonta has conducted investigative sweeps related to location data, streaming apps and devices, employee information, and surveillance pricing. 

Joseph McCafferty is editor & publisher of Compliance Chief 360.

The post Disney Settles ‘Opt-Out’ Privacy Case with California for $2.75 Million appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

n today’s fast-paced business environment, regulatory compliance has become both more critical and more complex. Organizations are expected to maintain rigorous internal controls, ensure transparency, and respond swiftly to audits all while managing sprawling IT ecosystems and evolving risk landscapes.

Regulations like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) demand companies adhere to strict financial reporting, information security, and auditing requirements. Yet many businesses still rely on manual processes and fragmented systems to meet these requirements. This approach is not only inefficient but also increases the risk of errors, omissions, and non-compliance.

As digital transformation accelerates, compliance teams are being asked to do more with less and the result is a widening gap between compliance obligations and operational capacity.

AI and Automation: Driving a Transformation

Artificial intelligence and automation technologies are emerging as powerful allies in the quest for smarter, more scalable compliance. These tools can streamline routine tasks while enhancing accuracy and provide real-time insights into control effectiveness.

Automation is particularly effective in handling repetitive, rules-based activities such as data collection and report generation. By reducing manual effort, it frees up compliance professionals to focus on strategic oversight and risk mitigation.

AI, on the other hand, brings intelligence into the equation. Machine learning algorithms can analyze vast datasets to detect anomalies, flag potential risks, and even predict future compliance issues. Natural language processing can extract insights from unstructured data, such as emails or policy documents, enabling more comprehensive monitoring.

Together, AI and automation are transforming compliance from a reactive, checklist-driven function into a proactive, intelligence-led discipline.

Continuous Compliance and Adaptive Controls

One of the most transformative shifts enabled by AI and automation is the move toward continuous compliance. Rather than relying on periodic audits or static control reviews, organizations can now monitor their control environments in real time.

This approach allows for faster detection of issues, quicker remediation, and more reliable assurance for stakeholders. It also aligns better with the dynamic nature of modern business, where risks can emerge and evolve rapidly.

Adaptive controls, powered by AI, take this a step further. These controls can adjust dynamically based on context, user behavior, or risk signals. For instance, if a user accesses sensitive financial data from an unfamiliar location, the system might require multi-factor authentication or temporarily restrict access until the activity is verified.

Such intelligent controls enhance security while maintaining operational flexibility, helping organizations strike the right balance between risk management and business agility.

Implementation Challenges and Considerations

While the benefits of AI and automation are clear, successful implementation requires thoughtful planning and execution. Organizations must ensure that these technologies are properly integrated into existing systems and workflows, and that they align with broader compliance strategies.

Data quality is a critical factor. AI models rely heavily on accurate, comprehensive inputs to deliver meaningful insights. Poor data hygiene can lead to false positives, missed risks, or misleading recommendations.

Regulatory alignment is another key consideration. As AI becomes more embedded in compliance processes, regulators are beginning to scrutinize its use. Companies must ensure that their AI-driven practices are transparent, explainable, and auditable. This includes documenting how models are trained, how decisions are made, and how outputs are validated.

Cultural change is also essential. Compliance teams may need to develop new skills as they adopt new tools and embrace new ways of working. Collaboration—with IT, cybersecurity, and business units—is vital to ensure that AI and automation initiatives are successful and sustainable.

Solutions for Cybersecurity and Compliance Leaders

To navigate this transformation effectively, organizations should focus on a few foundational strategies:

• Adopt AI-Integrated Platforms. Start with tools that work seamlessly with your ERP and IT systems to automate tasks and track regulatory change
• Automate Repetitive Tasks. Free up your compliance team by automating routine activities like data entry and control testing
• Stay Ahead of Regulatory Shifts. Use AI to anticipate changes and adjust your compliance strategies before an issue arises
• Build Transparent Audit Trails. Leverage AI to document compliance activities clearly, making audits smoother and more defensible
• Centralize Data for Collaboration. Ensure all departments work from the same source of truth to improve coordination and decision-making.

Cybersecurity vendors have a unique opportunity to support these efforts by offering solutions that combine automation, AI, and robust control frameworks. By helping clients modernize their compliance environments, vendors can deliver measurable value while strengthening trust and resilience.

AI is a Business Imperative

AI and automation are no longer emerging trends, they are strategic imperatives for organizations seeking to modernize compliance and internal control management. These technologies offer a path to greater efficiency, accuracy, and agility, enabling companies to meet regulatory demands while staying ahead of risk.

For cybersecurity companies, the opportunity lies in guiding clients through this transformation with scalable, transparent, and vendor-neutral solutions. By doing so, they can help build a future where compliance is not just a requirement, but a competitive advantage. 

Chris Radkowski is an SAP GRC expert at Pathlock, an identity security and governance platform. A recognized leader in access governance with over 20 years of experience driving innovation in enterprise security and compliance solutions, he brings deep expertise in application access governance, risk management and regulatory compliance.

The post Modernizing Compliance: How AI and Automation Are Reshaping Internal Controls appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

his year, the compliance landscape is shifting on multiple fronts. Seven new U.S. state-level privacy laws are taking effect, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is proposing major changes to HIPAA—the most significant since 2013, and the EU AI Act is introducing sweeping new governance requirements for high-risk systems. For IT leaders, the pressure to prove compliance, not just claim it, has never been greater.

Yet, when asked about their organization’s compliance posture, most IT leaders respond with confidence. In The State of Business Email 2025 global study, 93 percent of respondents said they were confident in their compliance readiness. That’s the good news. The same study, however, found that fewer than half said they were very confident. That nuance matters, and it reveals a growing gap between perception and reality.

This widening gap is more than a confidence issue—it’s a structural risk. As regulations expand and new technologies like AI reshape how data is created and shared, IT teams must move beyond perceived security and toward enforceable, auditable control.

The Compliance Illusion

Modern IT environments are sprawling. Communication stacks are multiplying, data flows are increasingly decentralized, and AI-generated content is only adding to the complexity. It’s easy to conflate compliance with security and think that ticking the boxes for SOC 2, GDPR, HIPAA, and other compliance frameworks means a system is both compliant and secure. Yet good compliance doesn’t equal good security.

True security goes beyond compliance frameworks. It demands daily discipline: the ability to monitor and manage security controls across every tool, team, and touchpoint. Take the rise of generative AI, for example. It’s now easier than ever for staff to generate and send business-critical messages using nonstandard language, formats, or channels. Without clear oversight, even compliant systems can be undermined by how they’re used on a day-to-day basis.

Auditability is the New Baseline

In highly regulated sectors like finance, healthcare, and energy, auditability isn’t optional—it’s table stakes. That’s one reason email continues to play a vital role in compliance strategy. Unlike many instant messaging or project collaboration tools, email provides a structured, traceable, and universally adopted communication format.

According to The State of Business Email 2025 report, 82 percent of IT leaders say email remains the most important channel for communicating with external stakeholders, including clients, regulators, and partners. This isn’t just habit; it’s strategic. Email allows for retention, monitoring, and legal discovery at scale. But auditability doesn’t start and stop at the inbox. It must extend across the entire communication ecosystem, including how content is branded, archived, and governed—especially when teams operate across multiple tools and locations.

Automation Doesn’t Equal Control, Unless It’s Strategic

Many organizations are investing heavily in automation to streamline compliance tasks. That’s a good start. But automation without governance is like cruise control on a long road: helpful until the unexpected hits. True control means automating with intent—centralizing visibility, enforcing standardization, and eliminating shadow IT.

For example, IT leaders can deploy centralized, automated email signature platforms that not only unify branding but also ensure that legal disclaimers, footers, and regulatory notices are applied consistently, without relying on individual employees or departments. This kind of behind-the-scenes control reduces risk while lightening the manual workload on IT teams.

Bridging the Confidence Gap

So how do we move from email confidence to ensuring email trust control? First, we need to shift our mindset. Compliance isn’t a project; it’s a living discipline. It requires clarity around ownership, tools in use, and where data is stored and accessed.

Second, IT leaders must adopt a more rigorous approach to measurement. Instead of asking, “Are we compliant?” ask, “Can we prove the trustworthiness of our email compliance today?” That distinction is crucial when facing an audit, breach, or regulatory review.

Finally, prioritize solutions that provide both visibility, accountability and trustworthiness. Confidence alone does not guarantee security or compliance. Technologies that unify communication policies, monitor usage, and log changes in real time can transform compliance from a check-box exercise into a source of strategic strength to ensure all email communications adheres to compliance standards.

The Stakes Are Higher than Ever

In 2025, the stakes for compliance are higher than ever—financially, operationally, and reputationally. Feeling secure isn’t the same as being secure. To close the gap between confidence and control, IT leaders must rethink how compliance is measured, enforced, and maintained. The organizations that succeed won’t just stay out of trouble—they’ll be better equipped to adapt to whatever the next wave of regulation, innovation, or disruption brings. 

Cary Vidal is VP of IT at Exclaimer. Vidal has a proven track record of implementing robust security measures and safeguarding critical systems for organizations. He is passionate about ensuring data privacy and protecting against cyber threats.

The post Compliance Confidence vs. Control: Feeling Secure Isn’t Being Secure appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

According to Papa’s complaint, the girlfriend gained access to hundreds of thousands of Deutsche Bank clients’ private banking information including millions of private banking transactions. The girlfriend was alleged by Papa to be a Chinese citizen with “significant computer expertise.”

As an information technology employee at Computacenter, Papa was responsible for overseeing Computacenter employees working in the Deutsche tech rooms. According to Papa, while he was working his former job, he discovered that a colleague of his gave tech room access to his girlfriend even after being told that he cannot do so by Papa.

“CC (Computacenter) and DB (Deutsche Bank) were immediately aware that this significant security breach was required to be disclosed to the [SEC] due to DB’s status as a public corporation subject to SEC regulation,” the complaint reads. “Public disclosure of the security breach at headquarters would likely endanger CC’s multi-million-dollar contract with DB and significantly damage its corporate reputation as a company responsible for computer system security for major financial institutions and Fortune 500 corporations.”

Papa said that immediately informed his employee of the alleged wrongful access as well a Deutsche Bank vice president Marc Senatore. Papa argued that Senatore as well as his supervisors should have reported the incident to the Securities and Exchange Commission. However, according to Papa, his whistleblower complaint was immediately ignored as a means to protect Computacenter and its $50 million dollar deal with the Bank. As a result, Computacenter terminated Papa on July 31^st, 2023.

Papa’s lawsuit requests of $25 million results from his request of punitive, compensatory and additional damages. Specifically, Papa alleges that both Computacenter and Deutsche Bank engaged in negligence, tortious interference, and other violations of New York Labor Law.  

The post Whistleblower Sues Deutsche Bank, Computacenter for Retaliation appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

According to the FTC, the path to Uber One cancellation was a messy and confusing one. When customer tried to cancel their subscriptions, they were taken to multiple screens, all of which did not provide a clear option to cancel. Specifically the complaint states that “For any consumer wishing to cancel Uber One, defendants require them to take at least 12 different actions and navigate a maze of at least 7 screens, if they guess the right paths to use, despite there being no mention of cancellation until the fourth screen.”

“Americans are tired of getting signed up for unwanted subscriptions that seem impossible to cancel,” said FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson. “The Trump-Vance FTC is fighting back on behalf of the American people. Today, we’re alleging that Uber not only deceived consumers about their subscriptions but also made it unreasonably difficult for customers to cancel.”

In its complaint, the FTC alleges that Uber used deceptive billing and cancellation practices. For example, the complaint alleges:

• When signing up for Uber One, customers are wrongly promised savings of $25 a month. Even if that were true, Uber does not account for the cost of the subscription (up to $9.99/month) when calculating those savings. The company also obscures material information about the subscription (for example, by using small, greyed out text which consumers can easily miss). Many consumers say they were enrolled without consent; the complaint quotes one consumer saying they were charged despite not even having an Uber account.
• After sign-up, Uber charges consumers before their billing date. For example, some consumers who signed up for a free trial say they were automatically charged for the service before the free trial ended even though Uber promises customers the ability to cancel at no charge during the trial period.
• When customers try to cancel, Uber makes it extremely difficult. Users can be forced to navigate as many as 23 screens and take as many as 32 actions to cancel. If a customer tries to proceed with cancellation, Uber can require them to say why they want to cancel, urge them to pause their membership or, if that failed, present them with offers to stay. Some users are told they have to contact customer support to cancel but are given no way to contact them; others claim that Uber charged them for another billing cycle after they requested cancellation and were waiting to hear back from customer support.

The FTC alleges that the company’s deceptive billing and cancellation practices violate the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), which requires online retailers to clearly disclose the terms of the service they are selling, obtain consumers’ consent before charging them for a service, and provide a simple way to cancel a recurring subscription.

Uber denied the FTC’s claims, stating that that the company does not sign up or charge consumers without their consent. The FTC’s investigative process “was rushed, unconventional and compounded by the addition of new and unvetted allegations at the last minute,” according to Uber counsel and former FTC Commissioner Christine Wilson. “It is disappointing to see the FTC stray from the rigor and fairness that has long defined the agency at its best,” said Wilson, who was appointed to the FTC by President Donald Trump during his first term.  

The post FTC Sues Uber Over Deceptive Uber One Subscription Practices appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

The task force’s focus will be to assist the SEC in defining clear rules and boundaries for regulatory oversight and develop practical and achievable ways for companies, securities, or financial products to comply with SEC registration requirements. It will also create guidelines for companies to provide necessary and meaningful disclosures to investors without being overly burdensome or impractical.

The SEC perceives such the task force as way to both ensure that the agency itself performs better and to provide more clarity when it comes to crypto regulation. According to the SEC the task force will collaborate with agency staff and the public to “set the SEC on a sensible regulatory path that respects the bounds of the law.”

While under the leadership of former Chair Gary Gensler, the SEC faced much criticism on its approach to crypto regulation. Until the launch of this task force, the SEC primarily relied on enforcement actions that would have a retroactive regulatory effect on crypto rather than proposing clearcut rules.

“To date, the SEC has relied primarily on enforcement actions to regulate crypto retroactively and reactively, often adopting novel and untested legal interpretations along the way,” according to a SEC press release. “Clarity regarding who must register, and practical solutions for those seeking to register, have been elusive. The result has been confusion about what is legal, which creates an environment hostile to innovation and conducive to fraud. The SEC can do better.”

The Task Force’s Specific Focuses

According to the SEC, the task force’s undertaking will “take time, patience, and much hard work. It will succeed only if the task force has input from a wide range of investors, industry participants, academics, and other interested parties.” Many crypto firms have already begun submitting proposals such as allowing traditional broker-dealers to operate in the cryptocurrency market. in its mission to create a regulatory framework

Although it has and continues to receive ideas from crypto firms, the task force will prioritize the following objectives  its mission to create a regulatory framework:

• Security Status: The task force is studying different types of crypto assets to determine how securities laws apply to them, as this affects many other regulatory questions.
• Defining Jurisdiction: The task force is identifying areas that may not fall under SEC oversight.
• Coin and Token Offerings: The task force is considering temporary rules to allow certain token offerings to operate without uncertainty, as long as the issuer provides regular, accurate disclosures and agrees to SEC oversight in fraud cases. This would offer clarity until permanent rules or legislation are established.
• Registered Offerings: The task force will explore ways to improve existing registration options, to make it easier for token issuers to comply with SEC rules.
• Special Purpose Broker-Dealer: The task force is looking at revising the special-purpose broker-dealer framework, including allowing firms to hold both securities and non-securities crypto assets, and identifying other registration challenges.
• Custody Solutions for Investment Advisors: The task force will work with investment advisers to provide an appropriate regulatory framework within which advisers can safely, legally, and practically custody client assets themselves or with a third-party.
• Crypto Lending and Staking: The task force aims to clarify whether crypto lending and staking programs are subject to securities laws and, if so, how they can be structured to comply with regulations.
• Crypto Exchange-Traded Products (“ETPs”): The task force will help the SEC clarify its decision-making process for approving or rejecting new crypto ETPs. It will also consider updates to existing ETPs, like allowing staking or different ways of handling fund shares, but custody and other issues must be addressed first.
• Clearing Agencies and Transfer Agents: The task force will explore how blockchain and crypto assets fit within clearing and transfer rules, including their role in modernizing traditional financial markets.
• Cross-Border Sandbox: Since many crypto projects operate globally, the task force is considering ways to support limited, temporary international regulatory experiments, with the possibility of long-term solutions.

Although the task force initially said that it is open to ideas from industry participants and academics, it also welcomes public input. Anyone who would like to submit a comment to the task force can do so at Crypto@sec.gov.  

The post SEC Launches Cyrpto Task Force appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

The CFPB’s lawsuit describes how hundreds of thousands of consumers filed fraud complaints and were largely denied help, with some being told to contact the fraudsters directly to recover their money. Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo also allegedly failed to properly investigate complaints or reimburse consumers for fraud and errors as is required by law.

Jane Khodos, a spokesperson for Zelle, said that the CFPB’s arguments are “legally and factually flawed, and the timing of this lawsuit appears to be driven by political factors unrelated to Zelle.”

“Zelle leads the fight against scams and fraud and has industry-leading reimbursement policies that go above and beyond the law,” Khodos said. “The CFPB’s misguided attacks will embolden criminals, cost consumers more in fees, stifle small businesses and make it harder for thousands of community banks and credit unions to compete. Zelle is relied upon by 143 million enrolled American consumers and small businesses, and we are fully prepared to defend this meritless lawsuit to ensure their service does not suffer.”

The Alleged Failures and Neglect

According to statement made by CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, this lawsuit results from an investigation that launched in 2021. The investigation found that three of the nation’s largest banks allegedly “rushed to launch a payment system without implementing basic protections for their customers.”

The CFPB alleges widespread consumer losses since Zelle’s 2017 launch due to the platform’s and the banks’ failure to implement appropriate fraud prevention and detection safeguards. The CFPB alleges that Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Early Warning Services violated federal law through critical failures including:

• Leaving the door open to scammers: Zelle’s limited identity verification methods have allowed scammers to quickly create accounts and target Zelle users. For example, criminals often exploited Zelle’s design and features to link a victim’s token to the fraudster’s deposit account, which caused payments intended for the consumer’s account to instead flow to the fraudster account.
• Allowing repeat offenders to hop between banks: Early Warning Services and the banks were too slow to restrict and track criminals as they exploited multiple accounts across the network. The banks did not share information about known fraudulent transactions with other banks on the network. As a result, the fraudsters could carry out repeated fraud schemes across multiple institutions before being detected, if they were detected at all.
• Ignoring red flags that could prevent fraud: Despite receiving hundreds of thousands of fraud complaints, the banks failed to use this information to prevent further fraud. They also allegedly violated the Zelle Network’s own rules by not reporting fraud incidents consistently or on time.
• Abandoning consumers after fraud occurred: Despite obligations under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E, the banks failed to properly investigate Zelle customer complaints and take appropriate action for certain types of fraud and errors.

The lawsuit aims reimburse those who suffered financial losses due to the alleged neglect of fraud. It also seeks to impose penalties on the banks and implement measures to prevent similar violations in the future.  

Jacob Horowitz is a contributing editor at Compliance Chief 360°

The post CFPB Sues Major Banks and Zelle Operator for Alleged Fraud appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

new report predicts that compliance and assurance functions could double the amount they spend on new technology by 2027. According to the research, issued by Gartner Inc., generative AI, machine learning, and large language models will fuel a surge in spending by compliance, risk management, and assurance functions.

The news isn’t all good. The report also predicts a wave of disillusionment with advanced technologies as expectations are exceeding capabilities in many cases. Accordingly, Gartner experts have placed AI at the “peak of inflated expectations” in the 2024 “Hype Cycle” for legal, risk, compliance and audit technologies.

“Some assurance leaders are prematurely expecting AI technology to greatly enhance productivity,” said Weston Wicks, senior director analyst in the Gartner Legal & Compliance Practice. “While these technologies show promise, in the near-term Gartner recommends assurance leaders identify where they can pilot and experiment with them while maintaining healthy skepticism as they are implemented.”

Gartner experts believe that GenAI will have a foreseeable impact on adjacent innovations in the analytics space, and therefore certain innovations, such as data and analytics governance, audit analytics, legal analytics, and advanced contract analytics, have moved further toward the trough as the te to plateau for these innovations becomes nearer-term — two-to-five years.

“Certain notable movements on the 2024 Hype Cycle are driven by assurance leaders convinced that incorporating new technology and generative AI (GenAI) tools is necessary to manage the growing burden of new rules and regulations imposed on executives and enterprises globally,” said Wicks. “Select emerging innovations, such as compliance monitoring solutions, have been directly impacted by GenAI and have seen substantial movement along the Hype Cycle as a result.”

Proceed with Caution

While there are some expectations that the advancements in GenAI will be transformative in assurance, Gartner experts caution that early adopters must acknowledge the risks of these new advancements and their impact on teams’ ability to manage them.

“Early lessons learned by assurance leaders include understanding the importance of information management and data governance, and the importance of intentionally including humans in the loop to mitigate bias and other risks,” said Wicks. “For these reasons, Gartner estimates the innovations will achieve high benefit ratings across the next five years.” 

The post Report: Compliance Functions Could Double Tech Spend by 2027 appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

With risks constantly changing and driving new compliance requirements, compliance programs must be able to respond to changes with agility. This highlights the importance of incorporating a continuous monitoring approach. Fill out the form at right and hit “Submit” to get the report.

NIST defines continuous monitoring as: “Maintaining ongoing awareness of information security, vulnerabilities, and threats to support organizational risk management decisions.” This enables an organization to quickly pivot and respond strategically as new compliance requirements come into scope. Compliance programs are often developed with short-term goals in mind; for example, complying with an industry standard. However, compliance is not stagnant. Without scalable policies and procedures in place, no matter how well-conceived your program is, decentralization will ultimately hinder the growth and scalability of your program as time goes on.

A strong continuous monitoring foundation can help enable an organization to pivot as new requirements come into scope. Learn seven steps to incorporate continuous monitoring into your compliance program at any stage, including a checklist of key metrics to track.

FILL OUT THE FORM AT RIGHT TO DOWNLOAD THE REPORT >>

7 Steps to Incorporate Continuous Monitoring in Your Compliance Program

Complete the form to receive an email with a link to the Report.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.

Name *

First

Last

Business Email *

Company or Organization *

Company or Address

Job Title *

Address *

Address Line 1

Address Line 2

City

State / Province / Region

Postal Code

--- Select country ---AfghanistanAlbaniaAlgeriaAmerican SamoaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia (Plurinational State of)Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCabo VerdeCambodiaCameroonCanadaCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo (Democratic Republic of the)Cook IslandsCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicCôte d'IvoireDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEswatini (Kingdom of)EthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuamGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and McDonald IslandsHondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran (Islamic Republic of)IraqIreland (Republic of)Isle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea (Democratic People's Republic of)Korea (Republic of)KosovoKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMicronesia (Federated States of)Moldova (Republic of)MonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorth Macedonia (Republic of)Northern Mariana IslandsNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPalestine (State of)PanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalPuerto RicoQatarRomaniaRussian FederationRwandaRéunionSaint BarthélemySaint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Republic of ChinaTajikistanTanzania (United Republic of)ThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluTürkiyeUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsUnited States of AmericaUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVatican City StateVenezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)VietnamVirgin Islands (British)Virgin Islands (U.S.)Wallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweÅland IslandsCountry

Phone (optional)

Submit

The post 7 Steps to Incorporate Continuous Monitoring in Your Compliance Program appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

ompliance management has traditionally been marked by accessibility issues, which lead to barriers to adhering to regulations. These long-established frameworks can be so complicated that they make it hard for those who don’t have specialized knowledge to navigate them. Automated solutions, however, have marked a shift in the landscape, making regulatory compliance something that a broader audience can better understand

So how have they done that? Automation can streamline processes and reduce associated risks so that as regulations change over time, compliance can keep up with the pace. Businesses are facing increased scrutiny from regulatory bodies, so conducting smoother audits and staying in good financial condition are important considerations.

In the United States, for example, businesses must consider state and local regulations, in addition to federal regulations, when developing strategic plans or plans for new lines of business.  Whether this is through investing in compliance software or hiring specific legal experts they need to stay on top of the rapidly developing regulatory environment. Let’s dive into the reasons why automation is redefining compliance management.

Reducing Errors and Streamlining Compliance

Compliance management has traditionally involved so many manual processes that were time-consuming and prone to human errors. Processes such as audits, vulnerability assessments, and remediation efforts have often required tight-knit coordination between different teams, which can cause huge gaps in communication and missed compliance risks. This is where automation can be a game-changer, by integrating compliance tasks and automating manual processes.

Automated systems, for example, can assess IT environments for vulnerability, compare any configurations against regulatory standards, and then let the team know if there are any discrepancies. This lessens the manual workload and the possibility of overlooked patches or misconfigured systems. This type of monitoring also means that organizations can identify issues before they escalate into regulatory violations or costly breaches.

Automation also permits businesses to be able to handle complex compliance requirements more effectively. For example, regulations like the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) and Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) need to be consistently analyzed, but automation in this case enables regular audits without compliance teams getting overwhelmed.

Avoiding Regulatory Penalties and Ensuring Smooth Audits

If businesses don’t comply with regulations, the costs can be severe, with hefty fines and reputational damage both possibilities. Data breaches can lead to fines of up to $500,000 per incident, alongside ongoing monthly fines. So as these regulations tighten and audits keep coming in, businesses need to be wary to avoid penalties.

Automation means that businesses can be on top of records and generate reports to reflect their compliance status. Automated compliance tools also mean that reports can be more accurate and comprehensive, and the time and effort required for audit preparation are reduced. Documentation is the other aspect that can give real-time access to compliance records and demonstrate adherence to regulators.

Systems like asset inventory and PC lifecycle management solutions can help to bridge the gap between security and operations by integrating vulnerability assessments with remediation processes. This allows for the streamlining of security handoffs and accelerates patching, which in turn, reduces the window of vulnerability and prevents non-compliance issues from accumulating.

Further Strategies for Complying with Changing Regulations

To be able to maintain compliance while federal, state, and even global regulations are constantly changing is obviously a massive challenge. However, businesses can follow a few additional best practices to stay on top of things. First, organizations should define the compliance states with sufficient detail. Predefined policies that we briefly touched on, such as SOX, HIPAA, or PCI DSS, can serve as templates, and businesses can customize these policies to address their specific needs.

Automation needs to work in tandem with any change management processes to ensure that compliance actions are governed in line with the business’ priorities. By documenting changes and tracking exceptions, organizations can avoid compliance drift and maintain control over their compliance efforts.

Automation is undoubtedly transforming compliance management by reducing the amount of manual work while minimizing costly errors, and finally ensuring that organizations are ready for an audit when called upon. Due to the fact that processes like discovery, audit, and remediation are unified and integrated, businesses can stay compliant with the shifting regulatory landscape.  

Shagun Malhotra is founder of SkyStem LLC, a provider of automated account reconciliation software.

The post How Automation Is Redefining Compliance Management appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.