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
© 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
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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