Arbitration Involving Cybersecurity And Data-Protection Breach Claims
1. Introduction: Cybersecurity & Data-Protection Disputes in Arbitration
Modern commercial contracts—especially IT services, SaaS, cloud hosting, fintech, health-tech, and outsourcing agreements—contain extensive cybersecurity and data-protection obligations. Breaches of these obligations increasingly lead to arbitration because:
Disputes involve confidential data
Parties are often cross-border
Technical issues require expert determination
Public litigation risks regulatory and reputational exposure
Arbitration offers privacy, technical expertise, and enforceability.
2. What Constitutes a Cybersecurity or Data-Protection Breach
2.1 Typical Breach Scenarios
Unauthorized access to personal or confidential data
Failure to implement agreed security controls
Data loss due to inadequate backup or encryption
Delay or failure to notify breaches
Sub-processor security failures
Non-compliance with contractual data-protection standards
2.2 Legal Characterisation in Arbitration
Tribunals analyze breaches as:
Breach of express data-security clauses
Breach of implied duty of reasonable skill and care
Breach of confidentiality and trust obligations
Contractual non-performance distinct from regulatory penalties
3. Legal Framework Governing Cybersecurity Arbitration
(a) Arbitration Statutes
Depending on the seat:
UNCITRAL Model Law–based legislation
International arbitration acts (e.g., Singapore, UK)
(b) Interaction with Data-Protection Laws
Regulatory fines are not arbitrable
Contractual liability for data breaches is arbitrable
Arbitration does not oust regulatory jurisdiction
(c) Contractual Risk Allocation
Key clauses scrutinized by tribunals:
Information-security schedules
Data-processing addenda (DPAs)
Incident-response obligations
Liability caps and carve-outs
Indemnities for data breaches
4. Arbitrability of Cybersecurity and Data-Protection Claims
Courts consistently hold that:
Contractual claims arising from data breaches are fully arbitrable
Allegations of negligence, misrepresentation, or breach of confidence do not defeat arbitration
Public-policy objections apply only in rare cases involving criminal liability
5. Tribunal’s Approach to Cybersecurity Breach Claims
Tribunals typically assess:
Contractual security standards vs industry norms
Actual cause of breach (provider vs third-party attack)
Compliance with incident-response timelines
Whether breach was foreseeable and preventable
Effectiveness of limitation-of-liability clauses
Causation and quantification of loss
Expert evidence (forensics, cybersecurity, compliance) is decisive.
6. Key Case Laws Relevant to Cybersecurity & Data-Protection Arbitration
1. Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd
Issue: Interpretation of complex commercial obligations in arbitration
Held:
Arbitrators have wide discretion in interpreting technical and commercial duties
Courts will not intervene merely due to disagreement
Relevance: Applied to cybersecurity standards embedded in technical schedules.
2. AKN v ALC
Issue: Alleged breach of natural justice in technical arbitration
Held:
Very high threshold to set aside awards
Procedural dissatisfaction is insufficient
Relevance: Protects cyber-arbitration awards involving complex forensic evidence.
3. BLC and others v BLB and another
Issue: Failure to perform long-term contractual obligations
Held:
Expectation damages and loss of bargain recoverable
Commercial risk allocation respected
Relevance: Supports damages claims for data-security failures.
4. Alstom Power Ltd v Yokogawa India Ltd
Issue: System failures and contractual performance obligations
Held:
Non-compliance with technical specifications constitutes breach
Limitation clauses must be clear and unambiguous
Relevance: Applied to cybersecurity controls and system-hardening failures.
5. MT Højgaard A/S v E.ON Climate & Renewables
Issue: Conflict between general disclaimers and specific warranties
Held:
Specific contractual warranties prevail
Performance guarantees cannot be diluted by general clauses
Relevance: Cybersecurity warranties override generic “best efforts” language.
6. PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV
Issue: Jurisdictional objections and enforcement of awards
Held:
Failure to raise jurisdictional objections early amounts to waiver
Awards enforced strictly
Relevance: Common in data-breach arbitrations involving cross-border parties.
7. Defences Commonly Raised in Cybersecurity Arbitration
Sophisticated third-party cyber-attacks
Force majeure or “act of hackers”
Customer security misconfiguration
Compliance with industry standards (ISO, SOC)
Liability caps and exclusion of consequential loss
Tribunals assess these defences against actual contractual promises, not abstract standards.
8. Remedies in Cybersecurity & Data-Protection Arbitration
Contractual damages for breach
Indemnification for third-party claims
Declaratory relief on liability
Termination for material breach
Injunctions restricting data use
Orders for secure deletion or data return
Costs and interest
Regulatory penalties remain outside arbitral jurisdiction but may inform damages.
9. Enforcement of Cybersecurity Arbitration Awards
Enforceable under the New York Convention
Confidentiality of awards is preserved
Public-policy challenges rarely succeed
Courts do not re-examine technical findings
10. Conclusion
Arbitration involving cybersecurity and data-protection breach claims is:
Legally settled and widely accepted
Particularly suited to technical, confidential disputes
Strongly supported by pro-arbitration courts
Tribunals focus on contractual risk allocation, technical evidence, and commercial expectations, ensuring effective resolution of modern data-breach disputes.
RELATED Blog
comments