DataBreaches.Net

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

The Injuries Reilly Ignored: Consumer Data Breaches and Injury-in-Fact

Posted on April 19, 2016 by Dissent

Law student Shannon Grammel writes:

The U.S. Supreme Court denied review in 2012 to thousands of individuals whose data was breached who were alleging increased harm of identity theft and seeking to reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s decision to deny them standing in Reilly v. Ceridian Corp.1 In so doing, the Supreme Court declined a valuable opportunity to address the Third Circuit’s flawed renunciation of the parallels between data breach, medical monitoring and toxic tort cases.2 Such renunciation erred in conspicuously excluding from its calculus two critical injuries present in all three types of cases: heightened “at risk” status and fear of future harm. These injuries, this article argues, ought to have sufficed for Article III standing in Reilly.

This article proceeds in four parts. It first summarizes the injury-in-fact standing requirement. Next, it introduces the circuits’ divergent approaches to analogizing data breach, medical monitoring, and toxic tort cases. An illustration of the critical oversight the Third Circuit made in mistakenly rejecting these analogies follows. It concludes by urging that the present injuries of “at risk” status and fear of future harm be given their due consideration in the standing calculus.

Read more on Bloomberg BNA.

Category: Commentaries and Analyses

Post navigation

← SS7 hack explained: what can you do about it?
Denver Archdiocese payroll system breached, 18,000 at risk →

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

  • Ph: Coop Hospital confirms probe into reported cyberattack
  • Slapped wrists for Financial Conduct Authority staff who emailed work data home
  • School Districts Unaware BoardDocs Software Published Their Private Files
  • A guilty plea in the PowerSchool case still leaves unanswered questions
  • Brussels Parliament hit by cyber-attack
  • Sweden under cyberattack: Prime minister sounds the alarm
  • Former CIA Analyst Sentenced to Over Three Years in Prison for Unlawfully Transmitting Top Secret National Defense Information
  • FIN6 cybercriminals pose as job seekers on LinkedIn to hack recruiters
  • Dutch police identify users on Cracked.io
  • Help, please: Seeking copies of the PowerSchool ransom email(s)

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

  • 23andMe Privacy Ombudsman Urges User Consent Pre-Data Sale
  • The Meta AI app is a privacy disaster – TechCrunch
  • Apple fixes new iPhone zero-day bug used in Paragon spyware hacks
  • Norwegian Data Protection Authority’s findings on tracking pixels: 6 cases
  • Multiple States Enact Genetic Privacy Legislation in a Busy Start to 2025
  • Rules Proposed Under New Jersey Data Privacy Act
  • Using facial recognition? Three recent articles of interest.

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.