Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Keeping the Data-Breach Headlines In Perspective
From the Sony Pictures settlement, to the Ashley Madison debacle, data breaches are making big headlines of late. And when it comes to one case in particular ' the data breach at luxury retailer Neiman Marcus (Remijas v. Neiman Marcus, No. 14-3122 (7th Cir. July 20, 2015)) ' some would-be experts are spinning a misleading, black-and-white storyline. As you may remember, the 2013 data breach exposed the credit card data of 350,000 Neiman Marcus customers. This led to fraudulent charges occurring in 9,200 of those customer accounts. In short order, a class-action lawsuit followed in which customers sought $5 million in damages. While a district court dismissed the case ' in part because customers had been reimbursed for the false charges in question ' the U.S. appeals court reversed that dismissal in late July.
This ruling, according to the pundits, represented a tipping point toward victims of cyber fraud, and one that, as they saw it, may lead to a wave of successful class-action lawsuits filed across the country. To be sure, data breaches are a significant problem and certainly represent a liability risk. However, let's take a closer look at the precise meaning and context of the Neiman Marcus ruling. Do the pundits truly appreciate the procedural context in which the court reviewed the case? Are they accounting for the most important part of any class-action lawsuit ' class certification?
In the Neiman case, after all, the primary issue under consideration was standing. The district court had granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, based on the well-worn argument that the plaintiffs' alleged injuries were not sufficiently “concrete” to establish standing, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 case, Clapper v. Amnesty International, 638 F. 3d 118 (Feb. 26, 2013). Clapper held that, in order to establish Article III standing, plaintiffs must allege they are at imminent risk of suffering a concrete injury. The Seventh Circuit disagreed with the district court, but not with the Supreme Court's ruling in Clapper, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
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?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.