Pendulum Swings in Favor of Consumers for Data Breach Cases
I read an interesting post earlier today on one of WSJ’s blogs. It admitted that the pendulum has swung in favor of consumers in data breach cases. While defendant companies continue to get cases bounced on the flawed premise that no its data breach victims have not suffered any “actual harm,” more courts are sympathetic to the consumers.
Two big cases come to mind. One is the Wyndham data breach case (FTC brought the action). This past August, the Third U.S. Federal Circuit Court ruled against Wyndham, finding that the FTC can take action against organizations that adhered to poor IT security practices.
Several weeks before Wyndham was decided, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reinstated a data breach case against Neiman Marcus. Why? It found that the risk of harm was enough to establish standing. The 350,000 affected customers “should not have to wait until hackers commit identity theft or credit-card fraud in order to give the class standing,” the court ruled.
The Seventh Circuit, however, reinstated both types of claims – those who had incurred expenses tied to the Neiman Marcus hack, and those who feared identity theft in the future. Chief Judge Diane Wood pointed out that a breach victim’s fear of hackers in the future is not too “speculative” for a day in court.
Wood asks: “Why else [other than to cause harm] would hackers break into a store’s database and steal consumers’ private information?”