---
jurisdiction: "Idaho"
slug: idaho
countryCode: US
snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-12"
lastReviewed: "2026-06-11"
canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/privacy/idaho
license: CC BY 4.0
stale: false
---

> [!IMPORTANT]
> **Informational only — not legal advice.** This is a snapshot of an OpenAgreements practice note,
> provided for general information. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client
> relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
> Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
>
> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/privacy/idaho · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-12 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior

# Idaho Consumer Privacy Law[^about]

Idaho has no comprehensive consumer-privacy statute. The operative state framework is the data-breach notification provisions of Idaho Code §§ 28-51-104 to 28-51-107 plus the Idaho Consumer Protection Act as the deception hook, layered under the federal overlay (FTC Act § 5, GLBA, HIPAA, COPPA) — with two narrow new laws (social-media minors, conversational AI) arriving July 2026 and July 2027.


## At a glance

| Question | Idaho |
| --- | --- |
| **Summary** | Idaho has not enacted a comprehensive consumer-privacy law, so there are no general data-rights, notice-at-collection, consent, or processor-contract duties under state law. The operative state statutes are the breach-notification provisions in the identity-theft chapter — a misuse-triggered notice duty with no day-count deadline and no regulator notice for private businesses — and the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, which makes a privacy policy you publish but do not follow a deceptive practice. Build to the federal overlay (FTC Act § 5, GLBA, HIPAA, COPPA) and the breach statute, and watch two narrow 2026 enactments, one on social-media minors and one on conversational AI. |
| **Main law** | Idaho Code §§ 28-51-104 to 28-51-107 (data-breach notification) plus the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, Idaho Code § 48-601 et seq. — Idaho has no comprehensive consumer-privacy statute |
| **Privacy policy required?** | No Idaho statute requires a consumer privacy policy or fixes its contents; the binding constraints are FTC Act § 5 and the Idaho Consumer Protection Act's ban on misleading or deceptive practices, plus GLBA, HIPAA, and COPPA where the business is in scope |
| **Who does it cover?** | Any agency, individual, or commercial entity (for profit or not) that conducts business in Idaho and owns or licenses computerized personal information about Idaho residents; no revenue or consumer-volume threshold |
| **Can consumers sue?** | Not under the breach statute — enforcement runs through each entity's primary regulator; the Idaho Consumer Protection Act gives purchasers a private action for actual damages or $1,000 (Idaho Code § 48-608), with narrow 2026 sectoral enactments to track separately |
| **Who enforces it?** | Idaho Attorney General (the primary regulator for most businesses; the Department of Finance and Department of Insurance for their licensees) |

## Which privacy laws apply to your business in Idaho? {#which-privacy-laws-apply}

**Short answer.** There is no comprehensive Idaho consumer-privacy law. The operative state framework has two pieces. First, the breach-notification provisions of the identity-theft chapter apply to any city, county, or state agency, individual, or commercial entity that conducts business in Idaho and owns or licenses computerized data that includes personal information about an Idaho resident [^breach-duty-scope] — *commercial entity* sweeps in essentially every legal entity, for profit or not [^commercial-entity-def], and there is no revenue or volume threshold. Second, the Idaho Consumer Protection Act (ICPA) bans, among other listed practices, engaging in any act or practice that is otherwise misleading, false, or deceptive to the consumer — the hook that reaches privacy misrepresentations [^icpa-catchall].

Idaho has not enacted an omnibus privacy statute of the kind now common in other states, so Idaho residents have no general state-law rights to access, delete, or correct their personal data or to opt out of its sale, and businesses face no state notice-at-collection, consent, data-protection-assessment, or processor-contract duties. The breach statute governs incident response; the ICPA governs what you tell consumers. The rest of an Idaho-facing privacy program rides the federal overlay: Section 5 of the FTC Act reaches deceptive or unfair privacy practices nationwide, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act governs financial institutions, HIPAA governs covered health entities and their business associates, and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act governs services directed to children under 13.

Around that spine, Idaho legislates by sector and by harm rather than by data inventory. Recent examples include payment-card receipt truncation, an age-verification law for adult sites with a ban on retaining identifying information, genetic-testing restrictions on employers, license-plate-reader limits for government agencies, and mortgage trigger-lead disclosure rules — none of which imposes general data-handling duties on a typical business.

Two 2026 enactments deserve a calendar entry: the Stop Harms from Addictive Social Media Act (House Bill 542, 2026 Session Laws chapter 268) and the Conversational AI Safety Act (Senate Bill 1297, 2026 Session Laws chapter 249). Treat both as narrow sectoral watchlist items, not as an omnibus privacy regime. *Open codification question:* both acts were designated as a new chapter 21 of title 48, Idaho Code, with overlapping section numbers, so until the code commission resolves the collision in the July 2026 compilation, cite these laws by session-law chapter rather than by a section number in chapter 21.

## What must your Idaho privacy policy contain? {#privacy-policy-contents}

**Short answer.** No Idaho statute requires a general consumer privacy policy or fixes what it must say. The binding rule is that whatever you publish has to be true. Under Section 5 of the FTC Act, unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are unlawful [^ftc5-deceptive], and the Idaho Consumer Protection Act separately declares unlawful any act or practice that is otherwise misleading, false, or deceptive to the consumer [^icpa-deception-policy] — so a privacy policy that misstates how you actually collect, use, share, retain, or secure data is actionable under both. Where a sectoral regime applies, that regime supplies the contents: a HIPAA covered entity, for example, must give individuals adequate notice of the uses and disclosures of their protected health information and of their rights and the entity's duties [^hipaa-notice], and a GLBA financial institution must deliver a privacy notice before sharing nonpublic personal information with nonaffiliated third parties [^glba-notice].

In practice the Idaho drafting question is less what must be included and more does the policy match actual practice. The ICPA's list of unlawful practices carries a knowledge element — it reaches a person who knows, or in the exercise of due care should know, that a practice is deceptive [^icpa-deception-policy] — which arguably extends to negligently inaccurate policy statements, not just deliberate ones. And unlike the ICPA's private remedy, the Attorney General's enforcement powers carry no purchase-or-lease or ascertainable-loss limit, so public enforcement does not depend on showing that any consumer paid for anything.

Build the policy from the overlay that actually binds you: the GLBA privacy-notice rules if you are a financial institution, the HIPAA Notice of Privacy Practices if you are a covered entity, HIPAA business-associate and security obligations if you are a business associate, a COPPA notice if COPPA applies, and the comprehensive laws of other states whose residents you reach — many of which mandate a posted policy regardless of where your business sits. For everyone else, follow best practice — describe the categories of data collected, the purposes, the third parties you share with, and how users exercise any choices you offer — and then honor it, because in Idaho the enforceable obligation is consistency between the statement and the conduct.

## What must your contracts with vendors say? {#vendor-contracts}

**Short answer.** Idaho has no data-processing-agreement requirement — no state statute prescribes controller-to-processor terms, audit rights, deletion clauses, or subprocessor flow-downs. The one vendor-facing duty in Idaho law is a breach-response rule: an entity that maintains computerized personal information it does not own or license must notify and cooperate with the data's owner or licensee immediately following discovery of a breach if misuse of an Idaho resident's information occurred or is reasonably likely to occur [^breach-maintainer-notice].

Where a federal or sectoral regime is in scope, it supplies the contracting obligations: the GLBA Safeguards Rule requires financial institutions to oversee service providers, including by requiring them by contract to implement and maintain appropriate safeguards [^glba-safeguards], and HIPAA business-associate rules require a compliant agreement establishing the permitted uses and disclosures of protected health information [^hipaa-baa]. Outside those verticals, the prudent move is to carry the same protections forward as a matter of best practice — processing limited to documented instructions, confidentiality, reasonable security, breach notification back to your business, and return or deletion of data at the end of the engagement — even though no Idaho statute compels them.

The maintainer-notice rule is worth writing into vendor contracts anyway. The statute requires the vendor to notify the owner immediately and to share information relevant to the breach, but it sets no contractual specifics — so a well-drafted agreement should fix the notice channel, the timeline, and the cooperation duties the statute leaves general, and should allocate who pays for resident notification, since under Idaho law the notice duty to residents stays with the entity that owns or licenses the data.

## Do Idaho residents have rights to access, delete, or opt out? {#consumer-rights}

**Short answer.** No. Idaho law gives consumers no general rights to access, correct, delete, or port their personal data, no right to opt out of its sale or of targeted advertising, and no duty on businesses to honor universal opt-out signals such as Global Privacy Control. The generally applicable Idaho resident-facing disclosure duty is breach notice when the breach statute's trigger is met: if a covered entity's investigation determines that misuse of a resident's personal information has occurred or is reasonably likely, the entity must give that resident notice as soon as possible [^rights-breach-notice].

The rights an Idaho resident does hold come from federal sectoral law, where applicable. A GLBA financial institution must give consumers the opportunity to opt out before their nonpublic personal information is disclosed to nonaffiliated third parties [^glba-optout]. Under COPPA, a parent can refuse to permit an operator's further use, maintenance, or future collection of the child's personal information [^coppa-parental]. HIPAA adds access, amendment, and accounting rights for protected health information, and the FCRA adds access and dispute rights in consumer reports. Residents of other states may also carry their home-state rights into dealings with an Idaho business that meets those statutes' thresholds — the absence of an Idaho law does not insulate an Idaho company from California, Colorado, or Washington requests.

One narrow set of state-law rights is scheduled to arrive under the Stop Harms from Addictive Social Media Act (2026 Session Laws chapter 268), but it is a sectoral social-media minors law, not a general access, deletion, or opt-out regime. Track that act separately before treating it as an operational consumer-rights workflow.

## When must you notify people of a data breach in Idaho? {#breach-notification}

**Short answer.** When your investigation shows misuse — not merely access. An entity that becomes aware of a breach must conduct a good-faith, reasonable, and prompt investigation into the likelihood of misuse; if the investigation determines that misuse of an Idaho resident's information has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur, notice must go to the affected resident in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay [^breach-trigger-timing]. A reportable breach is the illegal acquisition of unencrypted computerized data that materially compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of personal information [^breach-def] — so encryption is a built-in safe harbor. There is no day-count deadline and no statutory notice-content checklist.

Be precise about who owes notice to whom, because Idaho splits the regulator-notice duty by entity type. A government *agency* that becomes aware of a breach must notify the office of the Idaho Attorney General within twenty-four hours of discovery [^breach-agency-ag-notice]. A private business owes no notice to the Attorney General or any other state regulator at any threshold — Idaho is one of the few states where a commercial breach never has to be reported to a state agency; the only mandatory recipients are the affected residents themselves (and the data's owner, if you are a vendor holding someone else's data). Notice may be written, telephonic, or electronic, with substitute notice (email plus website posting plus statewide media) available when costs would exceed $25,000, more than 50,000 residents are affected, or contact information is insufficient [^breach-notice-methods], and notice may be delayed at law enforcement's request [^breach-law-enforcement-delay].

*Personal information* is also narrower than in modern statutes: a resident's name combined with an unencrypted Social Security number, driver's license or Idaho ID number, or a financial-account or card number with its access code [^breach-personal-info] — no medical, biometric, health-insurance, or online-credential elements. Two compliance off-ramps round out the scheme: an entity that follows its own information-security-policy notice procedures consistent with the statute's timing is deemed compliant, and an entity regulated by state or federal law that follows its primary or functional regulator's breach procedures is likewise deemed compliant [^breach-safe-harbor] — which effectively lets GLBA- and HIPAA-regulated businesses run their federal playbooks. The cost of getting it wrong is concentrated on concealment: an entity that intentionally fails to give notice faces a fine of up to $25,000 per breach, enforceable by its primary regulator — the Attorney General for most businesses [^breach-fine].

## Can a consumer sue your business in Idaho over privacy? {#consumer-lawsuit}

**Short answer.** Not under the breach statute — that chapter creates no private right of action. Enforcement belongs to each entity's primary regulator, which may bring a civil action to enforce compliance and enjoin further violations when it believes an entity failed to give required notice [^breach-enforcement]; for businesses not overseen by the Department of Finance, the Department of Insurance, or a federal regulator, that primary regulator is the Attorney General [^primary-regulator-def]. The consumer's route is the Idaho Consumer Protection Act: a person who purchases or leases goods or services and suffers an ascertainable loss from a deceptive practice — which can include a privacy promise the business did not keep — may sue for actual damages or $1,000, whichever is greater [^icpa-pra].

The ICPA action comes with real teeth and real limits. A prevailing plaintiff recovers mandatory attorney's fees [^icpa-fees], courts may award punitive damages for repeated or flagrant violations, and an elderly (62 or older) or disabled plaintiff who proves an enumerated severe loss adds an enhanced penalty of $15,000 or treble actual damages [^icpa-elderly]. But standing requires a purchase or lease plus ascertainable loss — whether a user of a free, ad-supported service can satisfy that is untested in Idaho appellate case law — and class actions are largely defanged: the statute caps a class's statutory recovery at $1,000 total for the class [^icpa-pra], leaving only actual damages (hard to prove in privacy cases) uncapped.

Public enforcement faces none of those limits. The Attorney General may sue for injunctions, consumer restitution, and civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation plus expenses, investigative costs, and attorney's fees [^icpa-ag-penalties] — and must ordinarily first give the target written notice and an opportunity to execute an assurance of voluntary compliance or consent judgment [^icpa-avc], Idaho's nearest analog to a cure period. Two narrower sectoral remedies round out the picture. A merchant that prints more than the last five digits of a payment-card number or prints the expiration date on a receipt faces civil penalties; the cardholder's personal action is expressly keyed to a receipt that printed the payment-card number and the prosecuting attorney's failure to act within sixty days [^card-receipt-action]. And the 2026 social-media minors and conversational-AI enactments should be tracked as narrow sectoral remedy changes, not as general consumer-privacy causes of action.

[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-11. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Idaho. This article synthesizes Idaho primary law and is not legal advice from a Idaho-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

[^breach-duty-scope]: **Idaho Code § 28-51-105** — "A city, county or state agency, individual or a commercial entity that conducts business in Idaho and that owns or licenses computerized data that includes personal information about a resident of Idaho shall, when it becomes aware of a breach of the security of the system, conduct in good faith a reasonable and prompt investigation to determine the likelihood that personal information has been or will be misused." *Idaho Code § 28-51-105(1).* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title28/T28CH51/SECT28-51-105/>

[^commercial-entity-def]: **Idaho Code § 28-51-104** — "‘Commercial entity’ includes corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability company, association, organization, joint venture and any other legal entity, whether for profit or not-for-profit." *Idaho Code § 28-51-104(3).* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title28/T28CH51/SECT28-51-104/>

[^icpa-catchall]: **Idaho Code § 48-603** — "Engaging in any act or practice that is otherwise misleading, false, or deceptive to the consumer" *Idaho Code § 48-603(17).* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title48/T48CH6/SECT48-603/>

[^ftc5-deceptive]: **FTC Act § 5** — "Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful." *15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1).* <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/45#:~:text=Unfair%20methods%20of%20competition%20in,commerce%2C%20are%20hereby%20declared%20unlawful.>

[^icpa-deception-policy]: **Idaho Code § 48-603** — "The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared to be unlawful, where a person knows, or in the exercise of due care should know, that he has in the past, or is: (1) Passing off goods or services as those of another; (2) Causing likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services; (3) Causing likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, another; (4) Using deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services; (5) Representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, connection, qualifications or license that he does not have; (6) Representing that goods are original or new if they are deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used, or secondhand; (7) Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another; (8) Disparaging the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representation of fact; (9) Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised; (10) Advertising goods or services with intent not to supply reasonably expectable public demand, unless the advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity; (11) Making false or misleading statements of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions; (12) Obtaining the signature of the buyer to a contract when it contains blank spaces to be filled in after it has been signed; (13) Failing to deliver to the consumer at the time of the consumer’s signature a legible copy of the contract or of any other document that the seller or lender has required or requested the buyer to sign, and that he has signed, during or after the contract negotiation; (14) Making false or misleading statements of fact concerning the age, extent of use, or mileage of any goods; (15) Promising or offering to pay, credit or allow to any buyer or lessee any compensation or reward in consideration of his giving to the seller or lessor the names of prospective purchasers or lessees, or otherwise aiding the seller or lessor in making a sale or lease to another person, if the earning of the rebate, discount or other value is contingent upon the occurrence of an event subsequent to the time the buyer or lessee agrees to buy or lease; (16) Representing that services, replacements or repairs are needed if they are not needed, or providing services, replacements or repairs that are not needed; (17) Engaging in any act or practice that is otherwise misleading, false, or deceptive to the consumer" *Idaho Code § 48-603.* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title48/T48CH6/SECT48-603/>

[^hipaa-notice]: **HIPAA Notice of Privacy Practices** — "an individual has a right to adequate notice of the uses and disclosures of protected health information that may be made by the covered entity, and of the individual's rights and the covered entity's legal duties with respect to protected health information" *45 C.F.R. § 164.520(a)(1).* <https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/45/164.520#:~:text=an%20individual%20has%20a%20right,respect%20to%20protected%20health%20information>

[^glba-notice]: **GLBA privacy notice** — "a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title." *15 U.S.C. § 6802(a).* <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/6802#:~:text=a%20financial%20institution%20may%20not%2C,section%206803%20of%20this%20title.>

[^breach-maintainer-notice]: **Idaho Code § 28-51-105** — "An agency, individual or a commercial entity that maintains computerized data that includes personal information that the agency, individual or the commercial entity does not own or license shall give notice to and cooperate with the owner or licensee of the information of any breach of the security of the system immediately following discovery of a breach if misuse of personal information about an Idaho resident occurred or is reasonably likely to occur." *Idaho Code § 28-51-105(2).* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title28/T28CH51/SECT28-51-105/>

[^glba-safeguards]: **GLBA Safeguards Rule** — "Requiring your service providers by contract to implement and maintain such safeguards" *16 C.F.R. § 314.4(f)(2).* <https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/314.4#:~:text=Requiring%20your%20service%20providers%20by,implement%20and%20maintain%20such%20safeguards>

[^hipaa-baa]: **HIPAA Business Associate Contracts** — "A contract between the covered entity and a business associate must: (i) Establish the permitted and required uses and disclosures of protected health information by the business associate." *45 C.F.R. § 164.504(e)(2).* <https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/45/164.504#:~:text=A%20contract%20between%20the%20covered,information%20by%20the%20business%20associate.>

[^rights-breach-notice]: **Idaho Code § 28-51-105** — "If the investigation determines that the misuse of information about an Idaho resident has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur, the agency, individual or the commercial entity shall give notice as soon as possible to the affected Idaho resident." *Idaho Code § 28-51-105(1).* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title28/T28CH51/SECT28-51-105/>

[^glba-optout]: **GLBA opt-out** — "A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless— (A) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party; (B) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party; and (C) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option." *15 U.S.C. § 6802(b)(1).* <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/6802#:~:text=A%20financial%20institution%20may%20not,can%20exercise%20that%20nondisclosure%20option.>

[^coppa-parental]: **COPPA parental rights** — "the opportunity at any time to refuse to permit the operator’s further use or maintenance in retrievable form, or future online collection, of personal information from that child" *15 U.S.C. § 6502(b)(1)(B)(ii).* <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/6502#:~:text=the%20opportunity%20at%20any%20time,personal%20information%20from%20that%20child>

[^breach-trigger-timing]: **Idaho Code § 28-51-105** — "If the investigation determines that the misuse of information about an Idaho resident has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur, the agency, individual or the commercial entity shall give notice as soon as possible to the affected Idaho resident. Notice must be made in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay, consistent with the legitimate needs of law enforcement and consistent with any measures necessary to determine the scope of the breach, to identify the individuals affected, and to restore the reasonable integrity of the computerized data system." *Idaho Code § 28-51-105(1).* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title28/T28CH51/SECT28-51-105/>

[^breach-def]: **Idaho Code § 28-51-104** — "‘Breach of the security of the system’ means the illegal acquisition of unencrypted computerized data that materially compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of personal information for one (1) or more persons maintained by an agency, individual or a commercial entity." *Idaho Code § 28-51-104(2).* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title28/T28CH51/SECT28-51-104/>

[^breach-agency-ag-notice]: **Idaho Code § 28-51-105** — "When an agency becomes aware of a breach of the security of the system, it shall, within twenty-four (24) hours of such discovery, notify the office of the Idaho attorney general." *Idaho Code § 28-51-105(1).* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title28/T28CH51/SECT28-51-105/>

[^breach-notice-methods]: **Idaho Code § 28-51-104** — "‘Notice’ means: (a) Written notice to the most recent address the agency, individual or commercial entity has in its records; (b) Telephonic notice; (c) Electronic notice, if the notice provided is consistent with the provisions regarding electronic records and signatures set forth in 15 U.S.C. section 7001; or (d) Substitute notice, if the agency, individual or the commercial entity required to provide notice demonstrates that the cost of providing notice will exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), or that the number of Idaho residents to be notified exceeds fifty thousand (50,000), or that the agency, individual or the commercial entity does not have sufficient contact information to provide notice. Substitute notice consists of all of the following: (i) E-mail notice if the agency, individual or the commercial entity has e-mail addresses for the affected Idaho residents; and (ii) Conspicuous posting of the notice on the website page of the agency, individual or the commercial entity if the agency, individual or the commercial entity maintains one; and (iii) Notice to major statewide media." *Idaho Code § 28-51-104(4).* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title28/T28CH51/SECT28-51-104/>

[^breach-law-enforcement-delay]: **Idaho Code § 28-51-105** — "Notice required by this section may be delayed if a law enforcement agency advises the agency, individual or commercial entity that the notice will impede a criminal investigation. Notice required by this section must be made in good faith, without unreasonable delay and as soon as possible after the law enforcement agency advises the agency, individual or commercial entity that notification will no longer impede the investigation." *Idaho Code § 28-51-105(3).* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title28/T28CH51/SECT28-51-105/>

[^breach-personal-info]: **Idaho Code § 28-51-104** — "‘Personal information’ means an Idaho resident’s first name or first initial and last name in combination with any one (1) or more of the following data elements that relate to the resident, when either the name or the data elements are not encrypted: (a) Social security number; (b) Driver’s license number or Idaho identification card number; or (c) Account number, or credit or debit card number, in combination with any required security code, access code, or password that would permit access to a resident’s financial account." *Idaho Code § 28-51-104(5).* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title28/T28CH51/SECT28-51-104/>

[^breach-safe-harbor]: **Idaho Code § 28-51-106** — "An agency, individual or a commercial entity that maintains its own notice procedures as part of an information security policy for the treatment of personal information, and whose procedures are otherwise consistent with the timing requirements of section 28-51-105, Idaho Code, is deemed to be in compliance with the notice requirements of section 28-51-105, Idaho Code, if the agency, individual or the commercial entity notifies affected Idaho residents in accordance with its policies in the event of a breach of security of the system. (2) An individual or a commercial entity that is regulated by state or federal law and that maintains procedures for a breach of the security of the system pursuant to the laws, rules, regulations, guidances, or guidelines established by its primary or functional state or federal regulator is deemed to be in compliance with section 28-51-105, Idaho Code, if the individual or the commercial entity complies with the maintained procedures when a breach of the security of the system occurs." *Idaho Code § 28-51-106(1)-(2).* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title28/T28CH51/SECT28-51-106/>

[^breach-fine]: **Idaho Code § 28-51-107** — "Any agency, individual or commercial entity that intentionally fails to give notice in accordance with section 28-51-105, Idaho Code, shall be subject to a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) per breach of the security of the system." *Idaho Code § 28-51-107.* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title28/T28CH51/SECT28-51-107/>

[^breach-enforcement]: **Idaho Code § 28-51-107** — "In any case in which an agency’s, commercial entity’s or individual’s primary regulator has reason to believe that an agency, individual or commercial entity subject to that primary regulator’s jurisdiction under section 28-51-104(6), Idaho Code, has violated section 28-51-105, Idaho Code, by failing to give notice in accordance with that section, the primary regulator may bring a civil action to enforce compliance with that section and enjoin that agency, individual or commercial entity from further violations." *Idaho Code § 28-51-107.* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title28/T28CH51/SECT28-51-107/>

[^primary-regulator-def]: **Idaho Code § 28-51-104** — "the primary regulator of a commercial entity or individual licensed by the department of finance is the department of finance, the primary regulator of a commercial entity or individual licensed by the department of insurance is the department of insurance and, for all agencies and all other commercial entities or individuals, the primary regulator is the attorney general." *Idaho Code § 28-51-104(6).* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title28/T28CH51/SECT28-51-104/>

[^icpa-pra]: **Idaho Code § 48-608** — "Any person who purchases or leases goods or services and thereby suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment by another person of a method, act or practice declared unlawful by this chapter, may treat any agreement incident thereto as voidable or, in the alternative, may bring an action to recover actual damages or one thousand dollars ($1,000), whichever is the greater; provided, however, that in the case of a class action, the class may bring an action for actual damages or a total for the class that may not exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), whichever is the greater." *Idaho Code § 48-608(1).* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title48/T48CH6/SECT48-608/>

[^icpa-fees]: **Idaho Code § 48-608** — "In any action brought by a person under this section, the court shall award, in addition to the relief provided in this section, reasonable attorney’s fees to the plaintiff if he prevails." *Idaho Code § 48-608(5).* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title48/T48CH6/SECT48-608/>

[^icpa-elderly]: **Idaho Code § 48-608** — "An elderly person or a disabled person who brings an action under subsection (1) of this section shall, in addition to the remedies available under subsection (1) of this section, recover from the offending party an enhanced penalty of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) or treble the actual damages, whichever is greater. (a) In order to recover the enhanced penalty, the court must find that the offending party knew or should have known that his conduct was perpetrated against an elderly or disabled person and that his conduct caused one (1) of the following: (i) Loss or encumbrance of the elderly or disabled person’s primary residence; (ii) Loss of more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the elderly or disabled person’s principal monthly income; (iii) Loss of more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the funds belonging to the elderly or disabled person set aside by the elderly or disabled person for retirement or for personal or family care or maintenance; (iv) Loss of more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the monthly payments that the elderly or disabled person receives under a pension or retirement plan; or (v) Loss of assets essential to the health or welfare of the elderly or disabled person. (b) If the court orders restitution under subsection (1) of this section for a pecuniary or monetary loss suffered by an elderly or disabled person, the court shall require that the restitution be paid by the offending party before he pays the enhanced penalty imposed by this subsection. (c) In this subsection: (i) ‘Disabled person’ means a person who has an impairment of a physical, mental or emotional nature that substantially limits at least one (1) major life activity. (ii) ‘Elderly person’ means a person who is at least sixty-two (62) years of age." *Idaho Code § 48-608(2).* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title48/T48CH6/SECT48-608/>

[^icpa-ag-penalties]: **Idaho Code § 48-606** — "Whenever the attorney general has reason to believe that any person is using, has used, or is about to use any method, act or practice declared by this chapter to be unlawful, and that proceedings would be in the public interest, he may bring an action in the name of the state against such person: (a) To obtain a declaratory judgment that a method, act or practice violates the provisions of this chapter; (b) To enjoin any method, act or practice that violates the provisions of this chapter by issuance of a temporary restraining order or preliminary or permanent injunction, upon the giving of appropriate notice to that person as provided by the Idaho rules of civil procedure; (c) To recover on behalf of consumers actual damages or restitution of money, property or other things received from such consumers in connection with a violation of the provisions of this chapter; (d) To order specific performance by the violator; (e) To recover from the alleged violator civil penalties of up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation for violation of the provisions of this chapter; and (f) To recover from the alleged violator reasonable expenses, investigative costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the attorney general." *Idaho Code § 48-606(1).* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title48/T48CH6/SECT48-606/>

[^icpa-avc]: **Idaho Code § 48-606** — "Unless the attorney general finds in writing that the purposes of this chapter will be substantially and materially impaired by delay in instituting legal proceedings, he shall, before initiating any legal proceedings as provided in this section, give notice in writing that such proceedings are contemplated to the person against whom proceedings are contemplated and allow such person a reasonable opportunity to appear before the attorney general and execute an assurance of voluntary compliance or a consent judgment as in this chapter provided." *Idaho Code § 48-606(3).* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title48/T48CH6/SECT48-606/>

[^card-receipt-action]: **Idaho Code § 28-51-103** — "A merchant who accepts a payment card for the transaction of business may not print more than the last five (5) digits of the payment card’s account number or print the payment card’s expiration date on a receipt provided to the cardholder. This subsection does not apply to a transaction in which the sole means of recording the payment card’s account number or expiration date is by handwriting or by an imprint or copy of the payment card. Effective January 1, 2004, this section applies to all receipts that are electronically printed using a cash register or other machine or device that is first used on or after July 1, 2003. Effective January 1, 2005, this section applies to all receipts that are electronically printed, including those printed using a cash register or other machine or device that is first used before July 1, 2003. (3) A merchant who violates this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for the first violation and one thousand dollars ($1,000) for a second or subsequent violation. An action to recover the civil penalty may be brought by a prosecuting attorney. If the prosecuting attorney does not file an action for such a civil penalty within sixty (60) days from the date the violation is reported by the cardholder whose payment card number was printed on a receipt in violation of this section, the cardholder may file such action." *Idaho Code § 28-51-103(2)-(3).* <https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title28/T28CH51/SECT28-51-103/>
