Hannaford Litigation Ruling Finds Plaintiffs Cannot Prove Damages

Andy Serwin of Foley & Lardner comments:

Harm in the privacy litigation context is a difficult concept for plaintiffs to prove. There have been a number of cases that have ruled that plaintiffs cannot meet their burden and prove damages sufficient to state a claim.   Courts have consistently ruled that plaintiffs cannot easily meet their burden of showing damage to support tort or contract claims.

In one of the first cases to reject a privacy claim due to a lack of damages, the court damages, the Eastern District of New York in Trikas v. Universal Card Services Corp., 351 F. Supp. 2d 37 (E.D. N.Y. 2005), rejected a plaintiff’s claim for violation of FCRA. In Trikas, the plaintiff brought an action based upon the assertion that an account erroneously remained open on his credit report. The plaintiff claimed that he suffered emotional distress because of this, even though it was admitted that no creditor actually, saw or relied upon, the erroneous information.

Read more on Privacy & Security Source.

About the author: Dissent

Comments are closed.