United States: U.S. City Suits: The Next Frontier Of Data Breach Actions

This article by privacy & cybersecurity partner Michelle Visser, counsel David Cohen, and associates Rebecca Harlow and Tom Wakefield was published by The New York Law Journal on February 21, 2018.

For over a decade, companies that have suffered data-security breaches have faced claims asserted by a dizzying array of adversaries, from the Federal Trade Commission and other federal agencies to state attorneys general to private plaintiffs such as consumers, employees, shareholders, and financial institutions. As if that were not enough, in late 2017 a new type of claimant has come to the fore: municipalities. Who are these new city plaintiffs, how do they fit into the existing landscape of data-breach litigation, and what can companies do to protect against the claims they bring? This article will de-mystify the new wave of city suits over data breaches and highlight some ways that organizations may be able to reduce their exposure to such suits.

Pre-Existing Litigation and Enforcement Activity

While the underlying statutes and common-law bases may vary, claims by government actors and private plaintiffs following a data breach are, for the most part, based on the same core set of factual allegations—the breached entity had inadequate security, deceived consumers about the quality of its security, and/or failed to respond appropriately or quickly enough upon discovering the breach. Pursuant to §5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, for example, the Federal Trade Commission has convinced numerous companies to enter consent decrees and has brought enforcement actions based on allegations that the company's data security was inadequate and/or that its statements to the public about security were deceptive. Depending on the kind of entity and the type of data involved, other federal government agency investigations and actions may also ensue. On a parallel track, state attorneys general—acting individually or in a coordinated multistate effort—often investigate breaches and the responses to them and may ultimately exact settlements or initiate litigation under data-security, breach-notification, or unfair and deceptive trade practices laws. For instance, in May 2017, Target reached a settlement with a group of 48 state attorneys general in connection with a 2013 data breach without resort to litigation.

Class actions by private plaintiffs often follow on the heels of a data breach. Breached entities may also end up in contract-based litigation with their insurers over the allocation of the costs of the breach or with other third parties.

Litigation with cities represents a new line of attack that a breached entity now might face.

Overview of City Suits

San Francisco became the first city to sue Equifax in the wake of a data breach that affected an estimated 143 million U.S. consumers. Dennis Herrera, the city attorney, brought suit in San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of the People of California. Complaint, People v. Equifax, CGC-17-561529 (S.F. Super. Ct. Sept. 26, 2017). According to the city, hackers exploited a vulnerability in Equifax's open-source software to access a vast trove of consumer data, including names, addresses, birth dates, driver's license numbers, social security numbers, and financial information. Though several sources allegedly issued notices and alerts about the specific vulnerability as early as March 2017, the city contended that Equifax failed to implement patches or to detect suspicious traffic until late July.

The city claimed that Equifax violated California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which broadly proscribes unlawfulness. The UCL expressly authorizes city attorneys to bring actions for damages and injunctions on behalf of the People of California, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17204, 17206(a), and it allows litigants to predicate unlawfulness claims on violations of other statutes, see, e.g., Cal-Tech Commc'ns v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 973 P.2d 527, 539-40 (Cal. 1999). Here, San Francisco predicated its unlawfulness claim on Equifax's alleged violation of California's Customer Records Act (CRA). In particular, the complaint alleges that Equifax violated three CRA requirements by failing to maintain reasonable security measures, failing to provide timely notice of the breach to affected customers, and failing to provide full and proper notice. See Cal. Civ. Code §§1798.81.5(b), 1798.82(a)-(b), (d). San Francisco also cast Equifax's allegedly unlawful conduct as "unfair business practices" under the UCL. On Dec. 21, 2017, the Superior Court overruled Equifax's demurrer in an order that found the claims adequately pleaded but contained little analysis. People v. Equifax, CGC-17-561529 (S.F. Super. Ct. Dec. 21, 2017) (order).

Los Angeles filed a similar lawsuit against Uber about two months later, alleging that the company paid hackers to delete stolen data—including the names and drivers' licenses of 600,000 Uber drivers—and waited a year to disclose the breach to affected drivers. Complaint, People v. Uber Techs., BC685552 (L.A. Super. Ct. Dec. 4, 2017). According to the city, Uber concealed the breach by treating the ransom payment as if it were a "bug bounty"—a tech industry practice where firms pay hackers to probe company software for vulnerabilities. Like San Francisco, Los Angeles pleaded a UCL claim that borrowed its unlawfulness from a purported CRA violation. But, because Los Angeles only pleaded that Uber violated the CRA by failing to provide timely notice, its suit is substantively narrower than San Francisco's. Both Los Angeles and San Francisco sought the UCL's penalty of $2,500 per violation, and San Francisco also sought restitution as well as an injunction against unlawful conduct.

Outside California, Chicago has sued both Equifax and Uber. Whereas California law expressly authorizes cities to bring suit under the state UCL, Illinois law contains no such provision. So Chicago purported to create its own means of enforcement: according to the city's Consumer Fraud, Unfair Competition or Deceptive Practices Ordinance (the Ordinance), a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA)—which prohibits unfair and deceptive conduct—also violates Chicago's municipal code. Chi. Code §2-25-090(a). In September 2017, Chicago filed suit against Equifax under the Ordinance, claiming that the company engaged in unfair acts—based on allegations that Equifax failed to protect against known, foreseeable data-security threats—and deceptive acts—based on allegations that Equifax misrepresented the company's data-security safeguards. Complaint, Chicago v. Equifax, 2017-CH-13047 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Sept. 28, 2017). It also alleged that Equifax failed to give the notice required by Illinois's Personal Information Protection Act, which itself constitutes an ICFA violation. Another count alleged that Equifax's offer of "free" credit monitoring was deceptive because it required a class-action waiver and individual-arbitration agreement and because it would automatically renew for a fee. After removal to federal court, the Northern District of Illinois stayed the case pending the likely formation of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) about the Equifax breach. Chicago v. Equifax, Case No. 17-cv-07798, slip op. at 3, (N.D. Ill. Nov. 26, 2017) (order), ECF No. 26.

After acting alone in Equifax, Chicago joined forces with the state in its suit against Uber. Complaint, Chicago v. Uber Techs., 2017-CH-15594 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Nov. 27, 2017). In a 10-count action filed by the city attorney and the state's attorney for Cook County, the first half of the complaint pleads Ordinance violations premised on alleged ICFA violations on behalf of Chicagoans and the second half pleads direct ICFA violations on behalf of the People of Illinois. The core alleged facts and theories remain the same: principally, that Uber mishandled personal information such that it was susceptible to attack, made deceptive representations regarding its inadequate data-security safeguards, engaged in unfair practices by concealing the breach, and violated the ICFA by failing to give prompt notice.

Implications for Breached Companies

The suits by San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago signal a new trend that all companies should watch closely. The emergence of yet another category of data-breach plaintiffs will add to the complexity and expense of responding to a breach. Notably, cities may take the untested position that their remedies are cumulative to those recovered in state actions, as Chicago's suit against Uber exemplifies. In that joint city-state action, the plaintiffs seek a fine of $10,000 per offense per day under the Ordinance as well as—for the same violation of the same substantive law—$50,000 per violation under the ICFA directly. While breached companies may have powerful arguments that no such cumulative fines are permitted and that such city suits are inappropriately duplicative of state actions, Chicago's theory currently remains untested.

Chicago's attempt to seek duplicative penalties in the data-breach context is new, but the core allegations in these city suits mirror those commonly seen in other data breach actions. Accordingly, the steps that companies can take in an effort to reduce their exposure to this new wave of city suits largely mirror the steps that companies can take to reduce their exposure to the pre-existing panoply of potential plaintiffs. Key examples of such steps include:

  • Implementing and maintaining reasonable and appropriate security measures. Most of the city suits accused the companies of failing to create and maintain a sufficient information-security program and allowing an otherwise preventable data breach to occur.
  • Scrutinizing statements about the company's data-security practices and how the company has responded to the breach to ensure that they are accurate. Nearly all city suits in the data-breach context so far have included claims of deception.
  • Developing and regularly testing an incident-response plan. All of the city suits challenged, at some level, the adequacy of the companies' responses to the breaches.
  • Being aware of notification obligations, especially in regard to the timing, content, and form of notification, as unlawfulness claims might be predicated on alleged failures to abide by these statutes' often highly technical strictures. This point is apparent in San Francisco's suit against Equifax, where the parties quibbled over particulars of the company's notification, such as whether the notification had in fact been titled "Notice of Data Breach" and whether it included the date of the notice on the correct form. Companies might consider creating an internal notification procedure. In the event of a breach, compliance with an internal policy might provide a safe harbor to certain statutory requirements. See, e.g., Civ. Code §1798.82(l).

Reprinted with permission from the February 21 edition of The New York Law Journal © 2018 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.

Further duplication without permission is prohibited. ALMReprints.com – 877-257-3382 - reprints@alm.com.

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.

In association with
Related Topics
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