Slashdot Mirror
Judge Slams Anthem, Rules That Breach Constitutes Harm To Customers (digitalguardian.com)
chicksdaddy writes: You would think that the "damages" caused by massive online thefts, like those leveled against Target, Home Depot and Anthem Healthcare are self evident. But companies are arguing hard that they can't be sued for damages resulting from data breaches, because the "victims" can't show that they were harmed by the theft. That was the case back in June, when lawyers for Home Depot filed a motion to have a case linked to the compromise at that company dropped. The case was brought by customers whose data was stolen in the attack, but Home Depot's attorneys argued that those customers couldn't prove that they were harmed by the theft of their credit card information. Now a judge in San Francisco has dealt a blow to would-be defendants in a case against Anthem. In an opinion released on Sunday, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh found that the loss of personal information in the breach of Anthem constitutes harm under New York's General Business Law. The ruling rejected arguments from Anthem and its lawyers that no direct harm resulted from the breach, which was first disclosed in February 2015. In her decision in the Anthem case, Koh reasoned that the theft of personal identification information is harm to consumers in itself, regardless of whether any subsequent misuse of it can be proven. Allegations of a "concrete and imminent threat of future harm" are enough to establish an injury and standing in the early stages of a breach suit, she said.
She's only been a judge since 2008
So what? According to that bio she has a lot of related experience. Apparently GP isn't the only one to think so. I don't think she needs any more "experience" any more than Scalia did when he was nominated at 49.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I think that you are 100% wrong here. In order to proceed with a lawsuit, you have to show that you have standing. Without harm (any amount of damages), you don't have standing to sue. So this ruling is NOT about how much, instead it is about if ANY harm occurred.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Judge Koh is already in line for a nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which will probably happen this month. Not to say that couldn't be pulled in favor of a Supreme Court nomination, but it's pretty unlikely.
New York General Business Law may be an applicable controlling law in the case if one of the parties harmed lives there or if the contract agreement stated New York laws governed contract disputes.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"