Bloomberg Law: Privacy & Data Security brings you single-source access to the expertise of Bloomberg Law’s privacy and data security editorial team, contributing practitioners,...
The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to decide Feb. 16 whether to accept an appeal by health insurer CareFirst Inc. on how much harm stemming from a data breach is needed to support a consumer lawsuit.
Federal courts have struggled with how to apply the Supreme Court’s ruling in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins that plaintiffs must allege a harm that is “actual or imminent” rather than speculative to have federal court standing. The issue is particularly challenging in data breach cases where cybercriminals may not have used allegedly stolen consumer data, but affected individuals fear misuse of their personal information. Federal appeals courts are split on whether fear of harm is sufficient to maintain data breach litigation.
If the Supreme Court grants review, companies, consumers, and attorneys will get much needed clarity on the likelihood of their data breach claims having legs. A decision to not take up the case may signal that the high court believes the Spokeo standard is enough to provide clarity for these groups, data breach attorneys told Bloomberg Law.
“CareFirst is as good as a vehicle as any for the Supreme Court to address injury requirements in the data breach context,” Rahul Mukhi, cybersecurity and privacy counsel at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP in New York, told Bloomberg Law.
Taking the case, Mukhi said, would be “a good sign for defendants because the Court has generally trended in the direction of imposing higher standing and pleading standards on plaintiffs.” Declining the case signals it “is not troubled that different courts can apply the same Spokeo standard to come to different results even when facing similar facts,” he said.
The case to be considered at the court’s upcoming conference arose out of 2015 data breach that compromised the information of 1.1 million CareFirst customers.
CareFirst asked the Supreme Court to review an August 2017 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that revived class data breach claims. The D.C. Circuit joined the Seventh Circuit, which said in Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Grp.that data breaches create a substantial risk of identity theft because, presumably, the purpose of a hack is to eventually make fraudulent charges or assume the consumers’ identities.
The Sixth and Ninth Circuits have also found standing based on an increased risk of ID theft. But the Third and Fourth Circuits have concluded that such alleged injuries are too speculative.
There’s a clear “divide between some circuits that believe a mere risk of harm at some undetermined point in the future is sufficient to meet the standing requirement, and other circuits that require actual harm for standing to exist,” Alfred J. Saikali, litigation partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP’s and chair of the firm’s privacy and data security practice, told Bloomberg Law.
Although data breach cases have been difficult to prove at earlier stages of trial, the high court may be able to clarify for plaintiffs’ lawyers what level of harms are needed to bring such cases.
“Data breaches do real harm by increasing the risk of future serious problems” but “causation is very difficult to prove,” Ray E. Gallo, senior partner at plaintiff-side litigation firm Gallo LLP in San Rafael, Calif., told Bloomberg Law. For example, “if you have identity theft, how do you prove where the unknown thief got the data?”
Even if clarity is provided, the plaintiffs’ bar isn’t likely to bring weak cases .
“Plaintiff’s lawyers work on contingency—so they don’t file cases they’re probably going to lose,” Gallo said.
The case is ( CareFirst, Inc. v. Attias , U.S., No. 17-641, court conference 2/16/18 ).
To contact the reporter on this story: Daniel M. Stoller in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Donald Aplin at firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2018 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)