Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 25 SEPTEMBER 2018

Court Rejects Neiman Marcus Data Breach Settlement Due To Injury-Based Class Conflicts

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Contributor
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Mintz is a litigation powerhouse and business accelerator serving leaders in life sciences, private...

View firm profile
Explore more from Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

As previously noted in this blog, the Neiman Marcus payment card data theft class action reflects a lenient approach to the issue of standing in data breach cases.

United StatesPrivacy

As previously noted in this blog, the Neiman Marcus payment card data theft class action reflects a lenient approach to the issue of standing in data breach cases.  In that case, the Seventh Circuit rejected arguments that customers claiming to have sustained only the theft of debit and credit card information had not alleged sufficient injury to have standing to sue.  See Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, 794 F.3d 688 (2015).  Now, however, differences in class members' claimed injuries have resulted in intra-class conflicts that have led to an order by the trial court rejecting a proposed class settlement of the lawsuit.  In so ruling, the court has highlighted why issues of injury and standing matter in data breach cases.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

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