DataBreaches.Net

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

DSW Shoe Warehouse wins dispute with Chartis unit over data theft coverage

Posted on August 23, 2012 by Dissent

Judy Greenwald reports:

A federal appellate court ruled Thursday that shoe retailer DSW Shoe Warehouse Inc. was entitled to insurance coverage of more than $6.8 million in stipulated losses and prejudgment interest from a Chartis Inc. unit in connection with a 2005 computer breach.

In an incident widely reported at the time, DSW, a subsidiary of Columbus, Ohio-based Retail Ventures Inc., reported that data on transaction information involving 1.4 million credit cards had been stolen.

Read more on BusinessInsurance.  The case is Cincinnati in Retail Ventures Inc. et. al. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh Pa.  According to the background provided in the Sixth Circuit’s opinion:

In the wake of the data breach, plaintiffs incurred expenses for customer communications, public relations, customer claims and lawsuits, and attorney fees in connection with investigations by seven state Attorney Generals and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC’s inquiry was resolved administratively with a consent decree requiring, inter alia, that plaintiffs establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program designed to protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of personal information collected from or about consumers. In the Matter of DSW, Inc., No. C-4157, 2006 WL 752215 (FTC Mar. 7, 2006). The largest share of the losses—more than $4 million—arose from the compromised credit card information: namely, costs associated with charge backs, card reissuance, account monitoring, and fines imposed by VISA/MasterCard. That amount was determined by the settlement of plaintiffs’ contractual obligations with credit card processor, National Processing Company, LLC  (a/k/a BA Merchant Services, LLC).

Although DSW was hacked in 2005 and settled the FTC action in 2006, it did not notify affected consumers until August 2008. The delayed notification also occurred for customers of some other big firms hacked by Albert Gonzalez. In November 2008, California’s Assembly Judiciary Committee invited DSW and seven other companies to a hearing on the failure to notify. DSW and the others did not attend. It is not clear to me whether the government had asked the companies not to notify consumers or if the companies just elected not to.

As part of the 2009 sentencing of Albert Gonzalez, some of the court documents were made public. The pre-sentencing report indicated that DSW had reported $6.5 million – $9.5 million in losses as a result of the breach.

Category: Breach IncidentsBusiness SectorHackOf NoteU.S.

Post navigation

← Ca: Memorial University hacked; Faculty of Business student data possibly accessed
Ca: Lawsuit filed against Central Health →

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

  • Ransomware Attack on ADP Partner Exposes Broadcom Employee Data
  • Anne Arundel ransomware attack compromised confidential health data, county says
  • Australian national known as “DR32” sentenced in U.S. federal court
  • Alabama Man Sentenced to 14 Months in Connection with Securities and Exchange Commission X Hack that Spiked Bitcoin Prices
  • Japan enacts new Active Cyberdefense Law allowing for offensive cyber operations
  • Breachforums Boss “Pompompurin” to Pay $700k in Healthcare Breach
  • HHS Office for Civil Rights Settles HIPAA Cybersecurity Investigation with Vision Upright MRI
  • Additional 12 Defendants Charged in RICO Conspiracy for over $263 Million Cryptocurrency Thefts, Money Laundering, Home Break-Ins
  • RIBridges firewall worked. But forensic report says hundreds of alarms went unnoticed by Deloitte.
  • Chinese Hackers Hit Drone Sector in Supply Chain Attacks

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

  • Massachusetts Senate Committee Approves Robust Comprehensive Privacy Law
  • Montana Becomes First State to Close the Law Enforcement Data Broker Loophole
  • Privacy enforcement under Andrew Ferguson’s FTC
  • “We would be less confidential than Google” – Proton threatens to quit Switzerland over new surveillance law
  • CFPB Quietly Kills Rule to Shield Americans From Data Brokers
  • South Korea fines Temu for data protection violations
  • The BR Privacy & Security Download: May 2025

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.