Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 16 JANUARY 2020

SDNY Rejects Standing Under "Increased Risk" Theory Where Data Not Targeted Or Stolen

Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP
Contributor
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP

Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP

The Firm Shook, Hardy & Bacon’s London group offers an elite, globally recognised product liability...

View firm profile
Explore more from Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP

Defendants in breach cases in federal court should always test standing as a potential way to terminate the case early.

United StatesPrivacy
Alfred Saikali
Alfred Saikali
Colman McCarthy
Colman McCarthy
Kate Paine
Kate Paine
Benjamin M. Patton
Benjamin M. Patton
Lischen P. Reeves
Lischen P. Reeves

The Southern District of New York rejected a settlement that would have resolved a class action based on the unauthorized (and accidental) emailing of personal information of one group of employees to another group of employees. Because plaintiffs admitted the breach did not lead to the theft of any class members' identity, the company filed a motion to dismiss the suit for multiple reasons including lack of Article III standing. The parties ultimately opted to settle before the court ruled on the motion. When the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the settlement, the court determined that the plaintiffs' "increased risk" theory was too speculative. It distinguished other cases that found standing based on that theory because the employees' data was neither intentionally targeted nor stolen.

TAKEAWAY

Defendants in breach cases in federal court should always test standing as a potential way to terminate the case early.

Read more in the full December issue of the Privacy and Data Security Client Alert.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from