Breach litigation standing — the bell tolls for Clapper

There have been a number of law firms blogging about the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in the Neiman Marcus lawsuit as a game-changer in data breach litigation. Here’s one commentary by Taylor Brooke Concannon and Peter Sloan of Husch Blackwell:

For years, federal district courts have reliably dismissed data breach consumer class actions at the outset, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International. Defendants’ tried-and-true argument goes like this:  (1) under Clapper, plaintiffs must allege at least an imminent risk of a concrete injury to have standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution; (2) the data breach plaintiffs haven’t alleged such an injury, and any future alleged injuries are too speculative; (3) so no standing, and no case.  But last week, in Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, the Seventh Circuit disagreed. The Neiman Marcus decision pumps new life into consumer data breach claims, and plaintiffs will undoubtedly argue that it sounds a death knell for Clapper in data breach litigation.

Read more of their analysis on Husch Blackwell Byte Back.


More than one dozen other commentaries and analyses from other law firms are linked from JDSupra.

About the author: Dissent

Comments are closed.