ARTICLE
16 January 2020

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

SH
Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.

Contributor

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
Defendants in breach cases in federal court should always test standing as a potential way to terminate the case early.
United States Privacy
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

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

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More