DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Class Action Suit Over Aetna’s Security Breach Is Dismissed

Posted on March 11, 2010 by Dissent

Shannon P. Duffy reports:

Finding there was no more than speculative injury, a federal judge has dismissed a class action suit against Aetna Inc. filed in the wake of news that the insurer’s computer database may have been hacked and that personal data of up to 450,000 job applicants were potentially at risk.

In Allison v. Aetna, U.S. District Judge Legrome D. Davis added his voice to a growing chorus of judges who have held that such a claim of “increased risk of identity theft” is not enough to confer standing to sue.

Read more on Law.com

The court’s order, which I’ve uploaded here, makes for interesting reading in terms of its review of similar cases as well as their reasoning:

Turning now to the facts of this case, we find that Plaintiff has failed to allege a sufficient injury-in-fact to satisfy the requirements of Article III.6 Plaintiff’s alleged injury of an increased risk of identity theft is far too speculative. First, Plaintiff’s allegation that his personal information was even accessed is conjecture. Plaintiff never received the phishing email. In addition, Defendant’s letter stated that they were unable to verify whether Plaintiff’s information was even accessed. (See Am. Compl. Ex. 1.) Second, Plaintiff’s own allegations suggest that the only information that the unauthorized individuals were able to access were the email addresses themselves. Plaintiff claims that “Class members face a significant risk of identity theft, evidenced by . . . [t]he hackers’ efforts to extract personal information from Class members via sending phishing email messages. Hackers would not seek such information if they did not intend to misuse it.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 28.) However, it would not be a reasonable inference for the Court to presume that hackers would seek such information, thereby risking exposure of their nefarious activities, if they had already obtained the same through unlawful means. Accordingly, even assuming that the hackers obtained Plaintiff’s email address, it is highly speculative that they obtained any other information that would be necessary to commit identity theft. Similarly, Plaintiff does not allege that anyone else possibly obtained such information. Finally, Plaintiff is well aware of the previous phishing emails, so even assuming he received such an email now, the risk of him providing such information is slight. At best, Plaintiff has alleged a mere possibility of an increased risk of identity theft, which is insufficient for purposes of standing, and he certainly has not asserted a credible threat of identity theft.7 Thus, Plaintiff lacks standing under any standard for increased risk of harm.

Category: Breach IncidentsHackHealth DataOf NoteU.S.

Post navigation

← (update) HSBC: Data theft incident broader than first thought
Former Houston bank teller pleads guilty to selling customer data →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • B.C. health authority faces class-action lawsuit over 2009 data breach (1)
  • Private Industry Notification: Silent Ransom Group Targeting Law Firms
  • Data Breach Lawsuits Against Chord Specialty Dental Partners Consolidated
  • PA: York County alerts residents of potential data breach
  • FTC Finalizes Order with GoDaddy over Data Security Failures
  • Hacker steals $223 million in Cetus Protocol cryptocurrency heist
  • Operation ENDGAME strikes again: the ransomware kill chain broken at its source
  • Mysterious Database of 184 Million Records Exposes Vast Array of Login Credentials
  • Mysterious hacking group Careto was run by the Spanish government, sources say
  • 16 Defendants Federally Charged in Connection with DanaBot Malware Scheme That Infected Computers Worldwide

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • D.C. Federal Court Rules Termination of Democrat PCLOB Members Is Unlawful
  • Meta may continue to train AI with user data, German court says
  • Widow of slain Saudi journalist can’t pursue surveillance claims against Israeli spyware firm
  • Researchers Scrape 2 Billion Discord Messages and Publish Them Online
  • GDPR is cracking: Brussels rewrites its prized privacy law
  • Telegram Gave Authorities Data on More than 20,000 Users
  • Police secretly monitored New Orleans with facial recognition cameras

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.