3 Effects the Equifax Settlement Could Have on Breach Litigation
Equifax reached a $1.4 billion settlement with the 147 million consumers impacted by a 2017 data breach, but the larger issues raised by the case may continue to linger long after the ink has dried.
January 23, 2020 at 11:30 AM
3 minute read
They say that hindsight is 20/20—which unfortunately is no help to Equifax right now. Last week, the credit reporting agency finalized a $1.4 billion settlement with 147 million consumers who were impacted by the company's 2017 data breach. Included in the agreement were a combined 10 years of credit monitoring and identity protection services.
While not every breach approaches the size or scope of Equifax, the settlement may illustrate some emerging trends—as well as a few nagging questions—over the way such incidents will be litigated in the future.
The Messaging Could Get Another Edit
In a post-Equifax world, attorneys and clients involved in a data breach settlement may be paying a little more attention to the nuances of how those terms are communicated to class action members. Michael Waters, a shareholder with Polsinelli, alluded to fallout surrounding the settlement announcement involved in the Equifax case, which indicated that impacted individuals could be receiving up to $125.
However, given the number of people involved in the class action, there's a possibility that individual class action members could ultimately find themselves holding a smaller check. "It may be that for future matters when settlements are announced that both plaintiff and defense parties are maybe a little more careful with how they message what people receive so that they are not setting expectations too high," Waters said.
The Perceived Value of Lost Data Is Going Up
A breach-related class action involving 147 million consumers doesn't come along every day, but there's still a chance that the scope of Equifax's $1.4 billion settlement could become par for the course depending on the size of the infraction. "We'll probably see in these larger lawsuits and larger data breaches settlements that look like Equifax's … but on smaller data breaches, on smaller incidents, you're probably only ever going to get credit monitoring," said Tomu Johnson, of counsel at Parsons Behle & Latimer.
Still, even credit monitoring standards may be getting an upgrade. Johnson pointed out that most settlements typically offer a year of free credit monitoring, maybe even three if the company is generous. Equifax's 10 year commitment is unusual. "It goes to, I think, a sense that there's a value to having your information lost that courts have usually been unwilling to entertain up until this moment," Johnson said.
Remedying Harm Will Continue to Get More Complicated
Myriah Jaworski, a certified information privacy professional with Beckage, echoed Johnson's belief that settlements on par with Equifax are going to become the norm, with the statutory damages provision of the California Consumer Protection Act potentially allowing for smaller class action suits to progress where they might not have before. However, exactly what future data breach plaintiffs will be asked to prove with regard to injury or damages is still up in the air in some states.
"Here you see this massive settlement amount, and you just sort of assume that there may have been some great demonstration of harm or damage, and that's not always the case," Jaworski said.
She expects to see more regulatory clarity provided on the issue of standing within the next year or two. Until then, the questions persist. "I think we're also starting to ask ourselves, is this really the type of harm that should be remedied by monetary damage, or is this something that should be dealt with more exclusively through credit monitoring?" Jaworski said.
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
© 2025 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
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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