The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has become the latest appellate court to enter the contested debate over Article III standing in data breach litigation. The Eighth Circuit held that 15 of 16 named plaintiffs who never alleged they had suffered identity theft or incurred fraudulent charges on their payment cards did not have standing to pursue claims based on alleged risk of future harm in the multidistrict action In re SuperValu, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The Eighth Circuit’s opinion comes on the heels of other decisions that found risk of future harm following a data breach sufficient to confer Article III standing on class action plaintiffs.
In a move counter to the trending precedent in data breach litigation, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled on July 20 that data breach plaintiffs whose personal information was potentially exposed in a confirmed hacking breach of a major retailer’s network alleged enough risk of harm to meet the standing requirements of Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs’ lawyers will herald this decision, but standing is only the first of many hurdles data breach plaintiffs must cross to proceed to the merits in data breach litigation.
President Obama today addressed cybersecurity for the second time in as many days in a speech at the Department of Homeland Security’s National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC). Early this morning, the White House announced a February 13 Summit on Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection and released further details on several initiatives to promote cybersecurity information sharing between the private sector and government. The President then convened a meeting with congressional leaders in which he discussed cybersecurity issues. Speaking about his cooperation with House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the President noted “I think we agreed that this is an area where we can work hard together, get some legislation done and make sure that we are much more effective in protecting the American people from these kinds of cyber attacks.” Today’s developments follow the President’s address to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) yesterday, in which he announced a legislative proposal on national data breach reporting and emphasized the importance of student and consumer privacy. Together, these events provide a preview of initiatives that the President is expected to highlight during his State of the Union address on January 20.
Within the last two weeks, two different federal district courts have issued decisions in high-profile data breach cases that highlight an important issue to watch in 2015: whether consumers whose payment card data was taken have standing to pursue claims against retailers. Northern District of Illinois Judge John Darrah and District of Minnesota Judge Paul Magnuson issued decisions regarding motions to dismiss in consumer class actions against P.F. Chang’s China Bistro Inc. and Target Corp. respectively, with substantially different results. The rulings took different approaches in examining whether the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged injury, showing continuing uncertainty over what consumers must plead in order to pursue a claim after a data breach.
On Monday, a federal district court dismissed two related putative class action suits filed against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company following a data breach at Nationwide in October 2012 that affected over 1 million individuals. The opinion shows that courts remain skeptical of plaintiffs’ ability to show any real injury from the fact that their personally identifiable information was compromised without some additional evidence of concrete harm such as identity fraud. The opinion also sheds important light on the ability of plaintiffs to overcome this standing barrier by alleging that their injury derives from the violation of a federal statute.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recently issued a revised guidance (“Guide”) on the Red Flags Rule (“Rule”) (see “Fighting Identity Theft with the Red Flags Rule: A How-To Guide for Business”). The Red Flags Rule requires certain businesses to develop, implement and administer an identity theft protection program. The purpose of this Guide is to […]
The FTC Red Flags Rules were not specific to the securities industry and there was some confusion as to which entities were subject to their requirements. This blog entry describes proposed rulesto applyRed Flag rules to certain broker-dealers, investment companies, investment advisers, futures commission merchants, commodity pool operators, introducing brokers, and other SEC- and CFTC-regulated entities
On October 20th, the Spanish Data Protection Authority, the Agencia Espanola de Protecccion de Datos (AEPD), announced an unprecedented decision against an individual who impersonated someone on a social networking site and thus engaged in identity theft. The AEPD fined the individual who had created a profile in a sexually-oriented social network, and chose not to proceed against the online host of the offending content.
The FTC is holding a July forum entitled “Stolen Futures”, focusing on children’s identity theft, as described in more detail in this blog entry.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced today that it is delaying enforcement of its FACTA Red Flags Rule until June 1, 2010 “[a]t the request of Congress.”