Defending Class Action Certification In Data Breach Litigation
The most common questions and key elements of a negligence claim are whether the defendant breached a duty of care, whether there is any injury as a result of the defendant's breach of any purported duty of care, and whether the defendant's alleged breach caused the plaintiff any damages. While these essential questions and elements apply with equal force in data breach litigation, the difficult question to answer in these cases is "what is the value, if any, of your injury or damages?"
January 23, 2023 at 09:38 AM
11 minute read
CybersecurityWhat You Need to Know
- Questions regarding the value of damages due to a data breach have flooded the courts in the context of data breach class action litigation.
- These questions have resulted in contradicting decisions among state and federal courts as to whether a prospect of future identity theft or financial harm is sufficient to confer standing.
- The influx of data breach class action litigation has highlighted another critical question — has a plaintiff met the requirements under FRCP 23 to bring suit on behalf of themselves and a putative class?
This article appeared in Cybersecurity Law & Strategy, an ALM publication for privacy and security professionals, Chief Information Security Officers, Chief Information Officers, Chief Technology Officers, Corporate Counsel, Internet and Tech Practitioners, In-House Counsel. Visit the website to learn more.
The most common questions and key elements of a negligence claim are whether the defendant breached a duty of care, whether there is any injury as a result of the defendant's breach of any purported duty of care, and whether the defendant's alleged breach caused the plaintiff any damages. While these essential questions and elements apply with equal force in data breach litigation involving as few as two parties and as many as thousands in the form of class action litigation, the difficult question to answer in these cases is "what is the value, if any, of your injury or damages?"
These questions have flooded the courts in the context of data breach class action litigation, resulting in contradicting decisions among the state and federal courts across the country as to whether a prospect of future identity theft or financial harm is sufficient to confer standing and allow a plaintiff, whether individually or on behalf of a putative class, to bring suit against a defendant who might have been the victim of a data breach, or whether it is sufficient to allege legally cognizable damages to sustain a claim for negligence or another common law or statutory claim.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Innovation Over Regulation': Tech Litigators and Experts Share Insights on the Future of AI, Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Under Trump
'We're Back': Fourth Circuit Considers Certification of Marriott Data Breach Class ... Again
5 minute readScammers Target Lawyers Across Country With Fake Court Notices
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250