DataBreaches.Net

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

Data Breach Plaintiffs’ Allegations Sufficient for Standing in Employee’s Suit Against CareCentrix

Posted on December 21, 2016 by Dissent

Ted Karch writes:

On Monday, the court in Hapka v. CareCentrix, Inc. ruled that employees of CareCentrix whose personal information was compromised have alleged enough harm for standing under Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.

In early 2016, a phishing attack compromised defendant CareCentrix’s systems, revealing personal information of up to two thousand employees.  CareCentrix notified the plaintiff of the data breach on March 27, 2016, and on April 18, the plaintiff received a letter from the IRS stating that someone had filed a fraudulent tax return in her name.

Read more on Covington & Burling InsidePrivacy.

This is a case where a plaintiff could allege actual, concrete injury, but there is something else notable about the opinion, I think. Karch writes:

The court also ruled that the plaintiff had adequately pleaded the elements of a negligence claim, alleging that defendant had failed to implement reasonable data security measures to protect employees’ personal information from disclosure.

From the opinion and order, which I’ve uploaded here, it appears the court rejected the defendant’s argument that in the absence of a statutory duty to protect employee data, the plaintiffs had to show a common-law duty and had failed to do so:

Plaintiff responds that defendant’s duty is to exercise reasonable care when it collects and stores the personal information of its employees. In this instance, defendant was obligated to implement reasonable data security measures to protect that information from disclosure. See In re Target Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 64 F. Supp. 3d 1304, 1308 (D. Minn. 2014) (“[G]eneral negligence law imposes a general duty of reasonable care when the defendant’s own conduct creates a foreseeable risk of injury to a foreseeable plaintiff.”) (citations omitted).

The court agrees with plaintiff that requiring identification of a statutory duty is unnecessary. Given plaintiff’s allegations that the harm was foreseeable, defendant had the duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent that harm. The court will not dismiss plaintiff’s claim for failure to identify a more specific duty.

A case to watch, indeed.

Related posts:

  • Court guts much of class action lawsuit against Sony over data breach, but some claims remain
Category: Commentaries and Analyses

Post navigation

← This Free App Can Protect You From Ransomware
Data breach affects almost 400,000 Community Health Plan members (UPDATE2) →

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

  • Horizon Healthcare RCM discloses ransomware attack in December
  • Disgruntled IT Worker Jailed for Cyber Attack, Huddersfield
  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report
  • Texas Centers for Infectious Disease Associates Notifies Individuals of Data Breach in 2024
  • Battlefords Union Hospitals notifies patients of employee snooping in their records
  • Alert: Scattered Spider has added North American airline and transportation organizations to their target list
  • Northern Light Health patients affected by security incident at Compumedics; 10 healthcare entities affected
  • Privacy commissioner reviewing reported Ontario Health atHome data breach
  • CMS warns Medicare providers of fraud scheme
  • Ex-student charged with wave of cyber attacks on Sydney uni

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

  • Supreme Court Decision on Age Verification Tramples Free Speech and Undermines Privacy
  • New Jersey Issues Draft Privacy Regulations: The New
  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report
  • Germany Wants Apple, Google to Remove DeepSeek From Their App Stores
  • Supreme Court upholds Texas law requiring age verification on porn sites
  • Justices nix Medicaid ‘right’ to choose doctor, defunding Planned Parenthood in South Carolina
  • European Commission publishes its plan to enable more effective law enforcement access to data

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.