Repairing Reputation Regardless of Cost: Why Companies Pursue Hackers
Pursuing a legal action against a hacker usually won't entail a financial windfall for litigants. But lawyers say repairing a company's reputation may be the biggest reason companies go after cybercriminals.
January 10, 2020 at 09:30 AM
3 minute read
Singer Mariah Carey's 2019 ended with some controversy when a string of lewd messages were made on her official Twitter account on New Year's Eve. Media reports have connected that incident to "The Chuckling Squad," a group tied to the August hacking of Twitter co-founder and CEO Jack Dorsey's Twitter account.
A California district attorney's office is pursuing the Dorsey hacking according to a report, while Twitter said it was investigating the matter as well. But with hackers hard to pin down, when is it beneficial for a company or individual to bring civil action?
Lawyers contacted by Legaltech News note that while suing a hacker may not net financial gain, repairing an online reputation could incentivize companies and individuals to pursue legal action.
"Reputation is the new currency; it is really starting to be recognized as fundamental and important," said Enrico Schaefer, founding attorney of Traverse Legal, whose practice includes internet and social media law. He added, "If you can identify the person that did that and get around the anonymous aspect, juries and judges have no tolerance for that behavior."
Still, accurately identifying the hacker and getting them in a courtroom is challenging for those seeking legal recourse, lawyers acknowledged.
"The odds are you won't have jurisdiction or you won't be able to exactly identify them, and hackers don't have significant money to go after or engage in litigation or track down," said defamation and legal privacy attorney Daniel Szalkiewicz of Daniel Szalkiewicz & Associates.
Identification and jurisdiction aside, Szalkiewicz noted there are various federal and state laws plaintiffs can pursue against a hacker. The Stored Communication Act could apply if someone gained access to information that was private, while a litigant can bring a conversion charge and prove the hacker intentionally interfered with someone's right of property, Szalkiewicz explained. If trade secrets were disclosed through a breached social media account, the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) could also be utilized, he added.
Indeed, losing trade secrets to a competitor or disgruntled employee presents the opportune moment to pursue action against a hacker, Szalkiewicz said. What's more, bad publicity that follows a hack can motivate companies to launch an internal investigation or lawsuit to prove a point to the public.
"From a public relations standpoint, [companies] engage in a thorough investigation to prove a hacking went on and that's one reason why they may bring a lawsuit or internal investigation," he said.
To be sure, some big-name corporations have publicly lodged civil actions against alleged hackers recently. In October Facebook filed a federal civil suit against "grey market" cyber company NSO Group over an alleged WhatsApp backdoor. Similarly, Delta Air Lines sued its vendor in August after the airline was breached and leaked thousands of clients' data.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 2Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 3Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 4'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 5Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
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