Target facing lawsuits from small banks over data breach
While Target may be stemming the tide of the multiple class action lawsuits coming its way from angry consumers, one new set of challengers is beginning to emerge: upset financial institutions.
February 10, 2014 at 08:09 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Nearly two months after retail giant Target first disclosed a massive data breach that resulted in approximately 40 million credit and debit card accounts being compromised, one may expect that the number of new lawsuits against the company would be starting to wind down.
However, while Target may be stemming the tide of the multiple class action lawsuits coming its way from angry consumers, one new set of challengers is beginning to emerge: upset financial institutions.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Target has begun to see lawsuits from small banks that suffered losses in the wake of the data breach. The WSJ reports that Target already faces seven class action lawsuits started by these institutions, alleging that Target did not perform due diligence in protecting its data.
“Retailers owe these banks a duty to protect consumer data and if they were negligent, Target is going to have a liability,” said Gary Lynch, an attorney who filed a class action suit for Pennsylvania-based First Choice Federal Credit Union.
In the suits, banks claim that Target's negligence could force the financial institutions to pay millions in dollars to reissue cards and repay compromised customers. The banks could also seek damages for business lost if it is determined that customers lost confidence in credit card purchases as a result of the breach.
Target has not commented on this new wave of legislation. As a result of the breach, which was recently revealed to include more compromised information than previously thought, Target has offered customers a free year of credit monitoring and the guarantee that customers will not be responsible for fraudulent purchases.
With the number of lawsuits headed Target's way still increasing, other retailers have begun making cybersecurity an increased priority. In late January, retailers petitioned Congress for increased cybersecurity regulation that could help protect companies from breaches. Companies are also reevaluating their compliance standards, seeking to go above and beyond baseline regulatory standards in order to protect the company from future lawsuits.
InsideCounsel has been following the Target story from the beginning. Follow the most recent developments with us:
Nearly two months after retail giant Target first disclosed a massive data breach that resulted in approximately 40 million credit and debit card accounts being compromised, one may expect that the number of new lawsuits against the company would be starting to wind down.
However, while Target may be stemming the tide of the multiple class action lawsuits coming its way from angry consumers, one new set of challengers is beginning to emerge: upset financial institutions.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Target has begun to see lawsuits from small banks that suffered losses in the wake of the data breach. The WSJ reports that Target already faces seven class action lawsuits started by these institutions, alleging that Target did not perform due diligence in protecting its data.
“Retailers owe these banks a duty to protect consumer data and if they were negligent, Target is going to have a liability,” said Gary Lynch, an attorney who filed a class action suit for Pennsylvania-based First Choice Federal Credit Union.
In the suits, banks claim that Target's negligence could force the financial institutions to pay millions in dollars to reissue cards and repay compromised customers. The banks could also seek damages for business lost if it is determined that customers lost confidence in credit card purchases as a result of the breach.
Target has not commented on this new wave of legislation. As a result of the breach, which was recently revealed to include more compromised information than previously thought, Target has offered customers a free year of credit monitoring and the guarantee that customers will not be responsible for fraudulent purchases.
With the number of lawsuits headed Target's way still increasing, other retailers have begun making cybersecurity an increased priority. In late January, retailers petitioned Congress for increased cybersecurity regulation that could help protect companies from breaches. Companies are also reevaluating their compliance standards, seeking to go above and beyond baseline regulatory standards in order to protect the company from future lawsuits.
InsideCounsel has been following the Target story from the beginning. Follow the most recent developments with us:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
King Kullen—the Nation's First Supermarket—Hires Outside Counsel as GC
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250