Judge Dismisses Much of PlayStation Hacking Suit

Lucille Scott reports that a federal judge has thrown out much of the potential class action lawsuit by PlayStation users who say that the Sony security breach exposed more than 69 million personal and credit card accounts to theft. Scott reports:

The 36-page order dismisses several claims such as negligence, unjust enrichment, bailment and violations of California consumer protection statutes.

Sony did not violate consumer-protection laws “because none of the named plaintiffs subscribed to premium PSN services, and thus received the PSN services free of cost,” Battaglia wrote.

Read more on Courthouse News.

Somewhat disturbingly, the judge held that Sony’s Privacy Policy included “clear admonitory language that Sony’s security was not ‘perfect,'” therefore “no reasonable consumer could have been deceived.”

So as long as a site puts in some disclaimer like “we’re not perfect in our security,” there is no recourse for what might be really sloppy security? Wow. How would that play out in other cases that have been litigated already or in the hopper to be litigated?

Venkat Balasubramani also blogged about this dismissal last week, but I missed it somehow. Do check his blog entry for more on the various issues raised in the case.

About the author: Dissent

Has one comment to “Judge Dismisses Much of PlayStation Hacking Suit”

You can leave a reply or Trackback this post.
  1. IA Eng - October 23, 2012

    The law has gone to heck and a hand basket. If you have to read between the lines in order to personally or individually determine if a case has sufficient merit something is definately wrong.

    I wonder if he has stock in the company = X

    Class action suits against a Fortune 100/500 company hould go through some sort of state sponsored court filtering so its not just one person who is looking over the data. I say state sponsored because it is there that the company resides in. The process would also be familiar (or should be) with most court related issues should the company in question have other remote offices. Typically it is one office that is the offender, while the rest of the company is working like a well oiled machine. Could that mean the class action suits become smaller and more pinpointed to remote office? Maybe. Legally, it could save the companies millions, but it may put a burden on one particular location, like where the call center and where the server farm is located.

    I understand that responsibility comes from the top down. I am not trying to twist peoples’ midset saying the brass should be let off the hook – I am just saying the get rich quick schemes like this can be mitigated. Many companies like Sony and others cross many country borders, and with that they have to try and interpret what is best to operate in that country. Some companies understand, others do not.

    Some of these Class Action suits are merited, but most are not. When it boils down to the attention span of one individual, usually a bit older, reading over the case until they cannot see straight – it becomes an issue. No one individual maintains the same even keel mindset day to day. its affected by many different causes and effects. Having one individual looking over something significant may not be the best solution.

    In this case as it stands, sure you can appeal, but that drags out the process and almost starts back to square one.

Comments are closed.