CALL 916-777-7777
Youtube Facebook-f X-twitter Linkedin-in

California Cryobank Data Breach

Posted on behalf of Arnold Law Firm in

NOTICE: If you received a NOTICE OF DATA BREACH letter from California Cryobank, contact the Arnold Law Firm at (916) 777-7777 to discuss your legal options, or submit a confidential Case Evaluation form here.

On March 14, 2025, California Cryobank, LLC (“Cryobank”) reported a significant cybersecurity incident to the Attorney’s General offices of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. According to the notice, between April 20th and 22nd, 2024, an unauthorized party accessed individuals’ private and sensitive personal information stored in Cryobank’s system (the “Data Breach”). At this time, the number of impacted individuals is unknown.  While the breach was discovered on April 21, 2024, it took until March 2025 for Cryobank to send data breach notification letters to individuals impacted by the Data Breach. Each notification letter includes complimentary twelve-month access to single bureau credit monitoring services through Cyberscout, a TransUnion company. If you received a data breach notification letter from Cryobank, it indicates that you were affected by the Data Breach.  Founded in 1977, Cryobank is a sperm bank headquartered in Los Angeles, California. Cryobank is a healthcare provider that specializes in reproductive health services, including semen cryopreservation, egg and embryo storage, and artificial insemination assistance. Cryobank serves customers internationally, offering shipping to more than 40 countries worldwide. Cryobank has an annual revenue of around $20 million and it employs about 115 individuals. 

WHAT INFORMATION IS INVOLVED IN THE CALIFORNIA CRYOBANK DATA BREACH?

According to its notice, the information leaked in the Data Breach includes: 
  • Name
  • Social Security number
  • Driver’s License number
  • Financial Account number
  • Health Insurance information
This information is called your Personally Identifiable Information (“PII”). It tells others about you and is considered part of your identity. Businesses are required to secure this information or risk facing statutory penalties, among other legal penalties. Stolen PII can be used by identity thieves to engage in fraudulent activity using your identity.  Personal medical information (a specific type of PII) is referred to as Protected Health Information (“PHI”). It is protected under both state and federal law. Healthcare providers and other businesses who handle PHI are required to protect that information. Like stolen PII, stolen PHI can be used by identity thieves to engage in fraudulent activity using your identity. Quite often, PII and PHI are used in conjunction by hackers. The best way to protect yourself after a data breach is to sign up for credit and identity protection services as soon as possible.  California offers extra protections and legal rights to its residents through the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) and the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”.) NOTICE: If you received a NOTICE OF DATA BREACH letter from California Cryobank, contact the Arnold Law Firm at (916) 777-7777 to discuss your legal options, or submit a confidential Case Evaluation form here.

Settlement - $3,767,000

Truck Accident

A 20-year-old man who had been married for just 12 days left home on his way to work. He was driving on Pleasant Grove Road in Sutter County in the early morning when he came upon a slow-moving truck. As he pulled out to pass the truck, the truck driver turned left in front of him. The young man attempted to steer back into his lane but his vehicle struck an un-flagged piece of metal extending from the back of the truck. He died in the resulting crash.

Expert witnesses brought in by the Arnold Law Firm proved that the truck, owned and operated by a hauling firm, should never have been on the highway that morning. Specifically, the rear and side turn signals did not work and the rear-view mirror was in a poor state of adjustment at the time of the collision. As a result, the driver, who had failed to properly inspect the vehicle before setting out that morning, couldn’t see the young man’s vehicle as it attempted to pass.

The poor condition of the truck, its lack of maintenance and the manner in which it was operated were found to be substantial factors in causing the collision that killed the young man. The testimony also established that the man had been making a lawful pass at the lawful speed limit and acted reasonably when he attempted to avoid the collision.

The man’s 20-year-old widow was awarded $3,767,000.77, his parents were awarded $185,131 and the family was reimbursed $11,899 in funeral expenses. Though money is a poor substitute for a young man’s life, this verdict demonstrates that drivers who endanger the lives of others will be held accountable for their actions.