Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A security breach that opened more than 6 million passwords to online viewing and spawned a putative class action will cost LinkedIn Corp. $1.25 million to settle.
The preliminary agreement was reached August 15 in In Re: LinkedIn User Privacy Litigation, a consolidated action through which plaintiffs alleged the professional networking site misrepresented the strength of its security protections.'
The suit stems from a 2012 security breach that let hackers post 6.5 million passwords online. Three days after the hack was discovered, LinkedIn said in a statement it had switched its password encryption method to a more advanced one.
Plaintiff Khalilah Gilmore-Wright, whose initial complaint against LinkedIn was dismissed because it failed to show she suffered economic harm, argued in her second amended complaint that she relied on the company's user agreement and privacy policy ' which states that '[a]ll information that you provide will be protected with industry standard protocols and technology' ' to pay for a premium LinkedIn subscription.
In fact, the complaint alleged, the company's security at the time of the breach was substantially below the industry standard. LinkedIn denies any wrongdoing or liability.
According to the proposed agreement, the $1.25 million settlement fund will be used to pay about $400,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses, along with no more than $180,000 in settlement administration costs. Much of the rest will be available, at $50 per claim, for those with premium LinkedIn subscriptions at the time of the hack, the settlement documents show.
LinkedIn also agreed to employ stronger security protections for passwords for five years, and the company said it would use salting and hashing ' cryptographic algorithms and random strings ' to make passwords far more difficult to crack.
Plaintiffs' counsel include attorneys from Edelson PC; Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP; Parisi & Havens LLP; and Siprut PC. Cooley LLP represents LinkedIn.
Lisa Hoffman writes for The National Law Journal, an ALM sibling publication of Internet Law & Strategy.
A security breach that opened more than 6 million passwords to online viewing and spawned a putative class action will cost
The preliminary agreement was reached August 15 in In Re:
The suit stems from a 2012 security breach that let hackers post 6.5 million passwords online. Three days after the hack was discovered,
Plaintiff Khalilah Gilmore-Wright, whose initial complaint against
In fact, the complaint alleged, the company's security at the time of the breach was substantially below the industry standard.
According to the proposed agreement, the $1.25 million settlement fund will be used to pay about $400,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses, along with no more than $180,000 in settlement administration costs. Much of the rest will be available, at $50 per claim, for those with premium
Plaintiffs' counsel include attorneys from Edelson PC;
Lisa Hoffman writes for The National Law Journal, an ALM sibling publication of Internet Law & Strategy.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Making partner isn't cheap, and the cost is more than just the years of hard work and stress that associates put in as they reach for the brass ring.