DataBreaches.Net

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

Maine Supreme Court: Hannaford breach victims cannot sue for time and effort

Posted on September 21, 2010 by Dissent

Following what appears to be a pretty well-established pattern by now, Maine’s Supreme Court has dealt victims of the Hannaford Bros. breach what will likely be the final blow, telling them that they cannot sue unless they have suffered unreimbursed financial losses, physical harm or identity theft. In their opinion, they state:

We, therefore, are asked to determine whether time and effort alone, spent in a reasonable effort to avoid reasonably foreseeable harm, is a cognizable injury under Maine law of negligence or implied contract. We conclude that it is not.

You can read the full opinion and their reasoning on the Maine Supreme Court web site, here (pdf).


Related:

  • Another plastic surgery practice fell prey to a cyberattack that acquired patient photos and info
  • How a hacking gang held Italy’s political elites to ransom
  • UN Cybercrime Convention to be signed in Hanoi to tackle global offences
  • Two U.K. teenagers appear in court over Transport of London cyber attack
  • ModMed revealed they were victims of a cyberattack in July. Then some data showed up for sale.
  • Toys “R” Us Canada customers notified of breach of personal information
Category: Breach IncidentsBusiness SectorHackOf Note

Post navigation

← WI: Man Facing 27 Charges for Allegedly Spying on ATM to Steal ID’s
Ca: Psych report of veterans critic inserted in minister's briefing: documents →

1 thought on “Maine Supreme Court: Hannaford breach victims cannot sue for time and effort”

  1. Philllip says:
    September 24, 2010 at 6:48 pm

    I would hope that this precedent applies to the Google wifi class-action lawsuit. Google did nothing with the data, and therefore there was no uncompensated financial losses or some other tangible injury, and, just to send the lawyers into fits of apoplexy, no MONEY.

    None of the people who had their data sniffed took action to protect it. They could have just activated WEP. Sure, it’s easily broken, but it takes positive action on the part of the sniffer to decrypt it. Starbucks could have printed a wireless key on the bottom of customer receipts, and changed it daily.

    I hope the court makes the right decision and finds in favor of Google.

Comments are closed.

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

  • Suspected Russian hacker reportedly detained in Thailand, faces possible US extradition
  • Did you hear the one about the ransom victim who made a ransom installment payment after they were told that it wouldn’t be accepted?
  • District of Massachusetts Allows Higher-Ed Student Data Breach Claims to Survive
  • End of the game for cybercrime infrastructure: 1025 servers taken down
  • Doctor Alliance Data Breach: 353GB of Patient Files Allegedly Compromised, Ransom Demanded
  • St. Thomas Brushed Off Red Flags Before Dark-Web Data Dump Rocks Houston
  • A Wiltshire police breach posed possible safety concerns for violent crime victims as well as prison officers
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel
  • Almost two years later, Alpha Omega Winery notifies those affected by a data breach.
  • Court of Appeal reaffirms MFSA liability in data leak case, orders regulator to shoulder costs

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

  • Lawmakers Warn Governors About Sharing Drivers’ Data with Federal Government
  • As shoplifting surges, British retailers roll out ‘invasive’ facial recognition tools
  • Data broker Kochava agrees to change business practices to settle lawsuit
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel
  • Changes in the Rules for Disclosure for Substance Use Disorder Treatment Records: 42 CFR Part 2: What Changed, Why It Matters, and How It Aligns with HIPAAs

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net
Security Issue: security[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.