Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Typically Uncommon: Defending Class Action Certification in Data Breach Litigation
The most common questions and key elements of a negligence claim are whether the defendant breached a duty of care, whether there is any injury as a result of the defendant's breach of any purported duty of care, and whether the defendant's alleged breach caused the plaintiff any damages. While these essential questions and elements apply with equal force in data breach litigation involving as few as two parties and as many as thousands in the form of class action litigation, the difficult question to answer in these cases is "what is the value, if any, of your injury or damages?"
These questions have flooded the courts in the context of data breach class action litigation, resulting in contradicting decisions among the state and federal courts across the country as to whether a prospect of future identity theft or financial harm is sufficient to confer standing and allow a plaintiff, whether individually or on behalf of a putative class, to bring suit against a defendant who might have been the victim of a data breach, or whether it is sufficient to allege legally cognizable damages to sustain a claim for negligence or another common law or statutory claim.
To further add to the complexity in defending data breach litigation, the influx of data breach class action litigation has highlighted another critical question — has a plaintiff met the requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to bring suit on behalf of themselves and a putative class? In data breach class action litigation, this determination typically turns on whether the plaintiff and the members of the putative class have demonstrated the requirements of commonality and typicality, and the related, yet more demanding, requirement of predominance.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
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.
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?