United States: Even After Remijas V. Neiman Marcus, Courts Continue To Dismiss Data Privacy Class Actions For Lack Of Standing

Torres v. The Wendy's Company

In Torres v. The Wendy's Company, No. 6:16-cv-210-Orl-40DAB (M.D. Fl. July 15, 2016), the plaintiff in a putative class action alleged that his debit card information was stolen when hackers used malicious malware to breach Wendy's computer system.  Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint alleged causes of action for breach of implied contract, negligence and violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for Wendy's failure to adequately secure his information, and alleged that the theft of his information caused: (1) future injury in the form of an increased risk of identity theft, and costs associated with that risk including monitoring his accounts and credit reports for fraudulent transactions and (2) present injury in the form of two fraudulent charges on his debit card. 

Wendy's filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing under Article III of the United States Constitution, arguing that Plaintiff's Complaint did not sufficiently allege that he had suffered, or will imminently suffer, an injury-in-fact.  Wendy's argued that Plaintiff's claimed future injury of increased risk of identity theft cannot confer standing because such risk is a speculative future harm; that even though Plaintiff alleges he is at risk of future identity theft and fraud, the risk is too remote to establish standing under Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, where the United States Supreme Court held that though risk of future injury can constitute an injury-in-fact, such injury must be "certainly impending" and "allegations of possible future injury are not sufficient." Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 1155 (2012).  Plaintiff countered that his allegation that his information was stolen was sufficient to create the inference that he is at an imminent risk of identity theft under Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, 794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015), where the court held that allegations that a plaintiff's information was stolen were sufficient under Article III because it establishes a "substantial risk" of future harm. 

With regard to Plaintiff's claimed present injury of incurring fraudulent charges on his debit card, Wendy's argued that Plaintiff did not allege an actual injury-in-fact because he did not allege that any of the charges were unreimbursed by his bank.  Plaintiff contended that the fraudulent charges constituted identity theft, allegations of which are sufficient to confer standing.

The court dismissed the Complaint for lack of standing, holding that neither alleged harm was a cognizable injury-in-fact under Article III. Relying on Clapper and a host of data breach cases decided in its wake, the court held that the Complaint's allegations of an increased risk of identity theft could not confer standing because they constituted allegations of possible future injury insufficient to meet Clapper's mandate that for the threat of future injury to constitute an injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing, the threat must be "certainly impending."  The court noted that for courts considering the issue, one influential factor is the number of plaintiffs in the class action who experienced fraudulent charges. The court stated that the Complaint did not sufficiently allege certainly impending injury because it did not allege that any data other than the plaintiff's was affected, thereby distinguishing the case from Remijas v. Neiman Macus, where the plaintiffs alleged that 350,000 credit cards had been exposed to the hacker's malware and over 9,200 of those cards had been used fraudulently. The court also held that Plaintiff's allegations that he incurred costs associated with the increased risk of identity theft such as monitoring his finances and credit report could not confer standing because, under Clapper and consistent with the majority of the courts considering the issue, a plaintiff cannot "manufacture" standing by inflicting harm on himself based on fear of future harm that is not certainly impending.

The court held that the plaintiff's allegations of fraudulent charges were insufficient to confer standing because, though actual identity theft would confer standing, courts considering the issue found that mere fraudulent charges do not, in and of themselves, constitute allegations of identity theft.  Rather, the plaintiff must be allege actual monetary loss from the fraudulent charges, and as the Complaint did not contain allegations that the fraudulent charges were unreimbursed or indicate that Plaintiff suffered any other monetary loss from the charges, the Complaint did not allege actual injury-in-fact.

Despite the insistence of data breach plaintiffs that the reasoning of Remijas v. Neiman Marcus compels courts to apply a more relaxed version of Clapper's "certainly impending" standard, this case illustrates that courts in data breach cases have continued to adhere to a robust application of  Clapper's standard when analyzing whether plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an injury-in-fact. 

Manning  v. Pioneer Savings Bank

The Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Rensselaer recently dismissed a proposed class action arising from the theft of a Pioneer Savings Bank owned laptop from an employee's car. Manning v. Pioneer Savings Bank, No. 251307/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Rensselaer County, July 17, 2016) (Elliott, J.). Plaintiffs purported to represent a class comprised of all New York State citizens who were Pioneer Savings Bank customers on the date thieves stole Pioneer's laptop, which contained certain customers' personally identifiable information [PII]. Pioneer argued that Plaintiffs' Complaint warranted dismissal, because Plaintiffs did not allege any injury-in-fact that resulted from the theft of the laptop sufficient to establish standing to pursue their claims.  Indeed, Pioneer noted that Plaintiffs' Complaint was devoid of any allegation of actual or attempted identity theft arising from the data incident.  Plaintiffs countered that the theft of their data contained on the laptop, the time and expense necessary to monitor their credit and the heightened risk of future harm conferred standing under New York's common law standard, which Plaintiffs claimed was less-stringent that Article III standing under the U.S. Constitution.  

Justice Elliott's Decision and Order dismissing the Complaint without prejudice agreed with Pioneer that Plaintiffs lacked individual standing to pursue their claims, because Plaintiffs failed to allege the existence of an injury in fact. The court reasoned that Plaintiffs did not establish any actual injury as a result of the data incident, as neither named Plaintiff identified any actual or attempted identity theft or any fraudulent charges. The court deemed Plaintiffs' allegations of speculative future injuries and the hypothetical issues "too remote and not sufficient enough to confer standing on Plaintiffs as they do not constitute an injury in fact." Accordingly, the court dismissed the class action without prejudice because Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any actual injury that they sustained, and thus, could not seek relief on behalf of any other putative class members. [Editor's Note: Kudos to Lewis Brisbois attorneys Claudia McCarron and David Sherman who successfully defended Pioneer Bank in this action.]

Khan v. Children's National Health System

In Khan v. Children's Nat'l Health Sys., the United States District Court for the District of Maryland addressed whether a plaintiff had standing to pursue a claim where an unauthorized individual gained access to the email accounts of certain hospital employees when those employees responded to "phishing" emails. Civ. No. TDC-15-2125, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66404, *2 (D. Md. May 19, 2016). The email accounts contained patient names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, telephone numbers and private health care information. Id. The court characterized as plaintiff's strongest argument for Article III standing that she faced an increased risk of identity theft. Id. at 7. In analyzing whether an increased risk of identity theft confers standing, the court addressed numerous data breach decisions throughout the country, including the Seventh Circuit's decisions in Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, 794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015) and Lewert v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., 819 F.3d 963 (7th Cir. 2016) and the Third Circuit's decision in Reilly v. Ceridian, 664 F.3d 38 (3d Cir. 2011). Id. at 8-15. The court recognized that the Third and Seventh Circuits had reached conflicting results, but reconciled the differences as not arising not from the application of a different legal standard, but from distinctions in the underlying facts. Id. at 11. The court concluded that in the data breach context, a plaintiff has properly alleged an injury in fact arising from increased risk of identity theft if they put forth facts that provide either: "(1) actual examples of the use of the fruits of the data breach for identity theft, even if involving other victims; or (2) a clear indication that the data breach was for the purpose of using the plaintiffs' personal data to engage in identity fraud." Id. at 15.

Applying this standard, the court held that the plaintiff alleged no facts that the hackers attempted to engage in any misuse of the patients' data since the breach was discovered. Id. at 16.  Further, the court held that the circumstances did not indicate that the breach was for the purpose of using the plaintiff's data to engage in identity theft. Id. The court reasoned that the hacker did not try to access the hospital's record system and that there was no indication that the patients' data was actually viewed, accessed, or copied, or was even the target of the phishing scheme. Id. Finally, the court dismissed the plaintiff's allegation that data breach victims are 9.5 times more likely to suffer identity theft as unpersuasive and insufficient to establish "certainly impending" harm. Id. at 17-18.  As a result, the court held that the plaintiff failed to allege a "certainly impending" injury or "substantial risk" of imminent injury sufficient to establish Article III standing. Id. at 18.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions