Circuit Courts Split: Victim of a Data Breach? Can You “STAND” and Sue in Federal Court?

Darlyn de la Rosa
{"title":"Circuit Courts Split: Victim of a Data Breach? Can You “STAND” and Sue in Federal Court?","authors":"Darlyn de la Rosa","doi":"10.25148/lawrev.15.1.21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As data breaches become more frequent, those whose data has been stolen have begun to sue the companies that kept their personal data. In order to sue in federal court for this issue, the plaintiffs need to satisfy Article III standing. To satisfy Article III standing, plaintiffs need to show that they suffered an injury in fact. The Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that the risk of future identity theft arising from a data breach is enough to establish the injury requirement under Article III. Although not in a data breach case, the Eleventh Circuit has also found that the risk of identity theft is sufficient to establish an injury in fact. In contrast, the Second, Third, Fourth, and Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeals have refused to find an injury in fact based on the increased risk of identity theft arising from a data breach. Although not in a data breach case, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has also found that the risk of identity theft is not sufficient for a plaintiff to have standing to sue in federal court. The Fifth and Tenth Circuits have not yet weighed in on the issue. The Supreme Court has also refused its opportunity to address the circuit split. The Supreme Court should address the issue and find that a data breach victim has suffered an injury in fact based on an increased risk of identity theft because (1) previous Supreme Court decisions regarding an injury in fact support that finding; (2) statistics and legislative action show a correlation between data breaches and identity theft; and (3) finding an injury in fact is the equitable result based on the pervasiveness of data breaches and the burden a data breach imposes on a victim, including economic and emotional burden. The Court should find an injury in fact for all victims of a data breach, including victims of data breaches that occurred during a physical laptop or box theft, and when the information stolen in the breach is credit or debit card information.","PeriodicalId":300333,"journal":{"name":"FIU Law Review","volume":"82 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"FIU Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25148/lawrev.15.1.21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As data breaches become more frequent, those whose data has been stolen have begun to sue the companies that kept their personal data. In order to sue in federal court for this issue, the plaintiffs need to satisfy Article III standing. To satisfy Article III standing, plaintiffs need to show that they suffered an injury in fact. The Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that the risk of future identity theft arising from a data breach is enough to establish the injury requirement under Article III. Although not in a data breach case, the Eleventh Circuit has also found that the risk of identity theft is sufficient to establish an injury in fact. In contrast, the Second, Third, Fourth, and Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeals have refused to find an injury in fact based on the increased risk of identity theft arising from a data breach. Although not in a data breach case, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has also found that the risk of identity theft is not sufficient for a plaintiff to have standing to sue in federal court. The Fifth and Tenth Circuits have not yet weighed in on the issue. The Supreme Court has also refused its opportunity to address the circuit split. The Supreme Court should address the issue and find that a data breach victim has suffered an injury in fact based on an increased risk of identity theft because (1) previous Supreme Court decisions regarding an injury in fact support that finding; (2) statistics and legislative action show a correlation between data breaches and identity theft; and (3) finding an injury in fact is the equitable result based on the pervasiveness of data breaches and the burden a data breach imposes on a victim, including economic and emotional burden. The Court should find an injury in fact for all victims of a data breach, including victims of data breaches that occurred during a physical laptop or box theft, and when the information stolen in the breach is credit or debit card information.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
巡回法院分裂:数据泄露的受害者?你能“站着”在联邦法院起诉吗?
随着数据泄露变得越来越频繁,那些数据被盗的人开始起诉保存他们个人数据的公司。为了在联邦法院就此问题提起诉讼,原告需要满足第三条的条件。为了满足第三条的要求,原告需要证明他们实际上受到了伤害。第六、第七、第九和华盛顿特区巡回上诉法院认为,数据泄露引起的未来身份盗窃的风险足以建立第三条下的伤害要求。尽管不是在数据泄露案件中,但第十一巡回法院也发现,身份被盗的风险足以构成事实上的伤害。相比之下,第二、第三、第四和第八巡回上诉法院拒绝认定伤害实际上是基于数据泄露引起的身份盗窃风险的增加。虽然不是在数据泄露案件中,但第一巡回上诉法院也发现,身份被盗的风险不足以使原告有资格在联邦法院提起诉讼。第五和第十巡回法院还没有就这个问题发表意见。最高法院也拒绝了解决巡回法院分歧的机会。最高法院应解决这一问题,并认定数据泄露受害者遭受的伤害实际上是基于身份盗窃风险的增加,因为(1)最高法院以前关于伤害的判决实际上支持该发现;(2)统计数据和立法行动表明数据泄露与身份盗窃之间存在相关性;(3)认定损害实际上是基于数据泄露的普遍性和数据泄露对受害者造成的负担(包括经济和情感负担)的公平结果。法院应该为数据泄露的所有受害者找到事实上的伤害,包括在实体笔记本电脑或盒子被盗期间发生的数据泄露的受害者,以及在泄露中被盗的信息是信用卡或借记卡信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Against Imperial Arbitrators: The Brilliance of Canada's New Model Investment Treaty "COVID-19 Was the Publicist for Homeschooling" and States Need to Finally Take Homeschooling Regulations Seriously Post-Pandemic Second Annual Report to The Editor-In-Chief Gender Inequality in Contracts Casebooks: Representations of Women in the Contracts Curriculum You'll Grow Into It: How Federal and State Courts Have Erred in Excluding Persons Under Twenty-One from 'the people' Protected by the Second Amendment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1