DataBreaches.Net

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

RESOURCE: Bryan Cave 2016 Data Breach Litigation Report

Posted on April 7, 2016 by Dissent

The law firm of Bryan Cave has issued its 2016 Data Breach Litigation Report. From their Executive Summary, some of their key findings:

  • 83 cases were filed during the Period. This represents a nearly 25% decline in the quantity of cases filed as compared to the 2015 Data Breach Litigation Report (the “2015 Report”).
  • When multiple filings against single defendants are removed, there were only 21 unique defendants during the Period. This indicates a continuation of the “lightning rod” effect noted in the 2015 Report, wherein plaintiffs’ attorneys are filing multiple cases against companies connected to the largest and most publicized breaches, and are not filing cases against the vast majority of other companies that experience data breaches. As with the overall quantity of cases filed, the quantity of unique defendants also declined as compared to the 2015 Report; approximately 16% fewer unique defendants were named in litigation.
  • Approximately 5% of publicly reported data breaches led to class action litigation. The conversion rate has remained relatively consistent as compared to prior years. The stability in the conversion rate is explained by a decrease in the number of publicly reported data breaches. While further research would be needed to separate correlation from causation, it appears that the decline in the absolute quantity of data breach class action litigation, and the absolute quantity of data breach class action litigation defendants, may be primarily due to a decline in the overall quantity of reported breaches. At this point there is no evidence to suggest that the decline in litigation is attributable to other causes (e.g., disinterest by the plaintiff’s bar, lack of success of previous litigation, etc.).
  • The Northern District of Georgia, the Central District of California, the Northern District of California, and the Northern District of Illinois are the most popular jurisdictions in which to bring suit. Choice of forum, however, continues to be primarily motivated by the states in which the company-victims of data breaches are based.
  • Unlike in previous years, the medical industry was disproportionately targeted by the plaintiffs’ bar. While only 24% of publicly reported breaches related to the medical industry, nearly 33% of data breach class actions targeted medical or insurance providers.4 The overweighting of the medical industry was due, however, to multiple lawsuits filed in connection with two large scale breaches. As a result, we do not expect the overweighting of the medical professions for breach litigation to necessarily continue into the coming year.
  • There was a 76% decline in the percentage of class actions involving the breach of credit cardsas compared to the 2015 Report. The decline most likely reflects a reduction in the quantity of high profile credit card breaches, difficulties by plaintiffs’ attorneys to prove economic harm following such breaches, and relatively small awards and settlements in previous credit card related breach litigation.
  • While plaintiffs’ attorneys continue to allege multiple legal theories, there appears to be some movement toward consolidation. For example, although plaintiffs alleged 20 legal theories, that represents a 16% decline from the 2015 Report, which identified 24 legal theories.
  • Favored legal theories continue to emerge. Specifically, while negligence was the most popular legal theory in the 2015 Report, with 67% of cases including a count of negligence, nearly 75% of cases now include a count of negligence.
  • Unlike in previous years in which plaintiffs’ attorneys focused on breaches of information that was arguably of a less sensitive variety (e.g., credit card numbers), plaintiffs’ attorneys overwhelmingly focused on breaches in this Period that involved information that is traditionally considered “sensitive” such as Social Security Numbers.

Click here to read the full report.


Related:

  • How a hacking gang held Italy’s political elites to ransom
  • Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
  • Predatory Sparrow Strikes: Coordinated Cyberattacks Seek to Cripple Iran's Critical Infrastructure
  • Ex-CISA head thinks AI might fix code so fast we won't need security teams
  • UN Cybercrime Convention to be signed in Hanoi to tackle global offences
  • ModMed revealed they were victims of a cyberattack in July. Then some data showed up for sale.
Category: Commentaries and AnalysesOf Note

Post navigation

← Einstein Health Network notifies 3,000 patients after web exposure of information
RESOURCE: State Security Breach Notification Laws →

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

  • 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
  • A jailed hacking kingpin reveals all about the gang that left a trail of destruction
  • Army gynecologist took secret videos of patients during intimate exams, lawsuit says

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

  • 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
  • Always watching: How ICE’s plan to monitor social media 24/7 threatens privacy and civic participation

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.