Ohio Law Should Apply in Wendy's Data Breach Class Action, Judge Says
A data breach case brought by several banks and federal credit unions against fast food chain Wendy's should proceed under the standards of Ohio law, a federal judge has recommended.
May 17, 2018 at 01:22 PM
3 minute read
A data breach case brought by several banks and federal credit unions against fast food chain Wendy's should proceed under the standards of Ohio law, a federal judge has recommended.
U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly of the Western District of Pennsylvania recommended that Ohio law govern the plaintiffs' claims of negligence per se but not the claims alleging violations of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ODTPA) as it applies to those plaintiffs not from Ohio.
The banks and credit unions are issuers of credit cards, and when their customers use those cards at Wendy's, the restaurant stores that data. In October 2015, hackers used the credentials of third-party vendors to install malware in the Wendy's system. They were able to steal card data of Wendy's customers from at least 1,000 restaurants, Kelly said in her report and recommendation.
The plaintiffs argued that Ohio law should apply because it is where Wendy's is headquartered. Wendy's, meanwhile, wanted to litigate each individual case using the law of the plaintiffs' respective home states.
Kelly said that the conduct at issue in the negligence claim involved Wendy's alleged failure to protect customer information and not the data breach itself.
“The instant suit is not based on the hacking incident itself, but rather on the actions and inactions of defendants in safeguarding payment card data which was compromised in the hacking incident,” Kelly said. “The court finds sufficient support for … plaintiffs' premise that the alleged actions and inactions of defendants at issue in this case took place at defendants' headquarters in Ohio. Accordingly, this critical factor weighs in favor of the application of Ohio law.”
Regarding the applicability of ODTPA, Kelly said in this case it was not the correct standard for out-of-state plaintiffs.
Unlike the negligence claim, “the outcome differs as to the ODTPA claim … due to the nature of the statute upon which it is based. As multiple courts have found, a single state's consumer protection statute, like the ODTPA, which is designed to protect consumer residents of the state in which it was promulgated, should not be generally applied to an action involving plaintiffs from multiple other states,” Kelly said.
She added that courts have held that the state where the consumer is harmed has the greatest interest in application of state consumer protection law.
Cassandra Johnson of Alston & Bird represents Wendy's and Arthur M. Murray of the Murray Law Firm represents the plaintiffs. Neither responded to a request for comment.
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 AllPhila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
3 minute read'Recover, Reflect, Retool and Retry': Lessons From Women Atop Pa. Legal Community
3 minute readEDPA's New Chief Judge Plans to Advance Efforts to Combat Threats to Judiciary
3 minute readTrending Stories
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