It seems as though we have been writing about this case for a lifetime. Target Corporation’s data breach saga came one step closer to a conclusion this week. On Tuesday, Target reached an $18.5 million settlement with 47 states and the District of Columbia to resolve the states’ investigation into the company’s 2013 data breach. Alabama, Wisconsin, and Wyoming were not part of the settlement. Continue Reading Target Reaches $18.5 Million Dollar Settlement in Data Breach with States
Counsel for a class of card-issuing banks filed a settlement agreement on March 8 proposing a class settlement to resolve claims arising from the 2014 theft of payment card data from Home Depot point-of-sale terminals. The contemplated $27.25 million class settlement follows in the wake of over $140 million already paid by Home Depot to settle issuer bank claims through card association settlement processes. The revelation that Home Depot was able to use private means to settle the vast majority of the bank claims outside of the class action raises significant questions about whether the proposed settlement class satisfies the requirement under Rule 23(b)(3) that a class action provide a superior means to resolve class members’ claims. Continue Reading Does Class Settlement Of Bank Claims In Home Depot Data Breach Litigation Pass The “Superiority” Test?
Two recent data breach incidents in the healthcare industry prove what readers of this blog have heard all too often: KNOW THY VENDORS.
Last week, Phoenix-based Banner Health reported one of the year’s largest data breaches. Banner reported that it had suffered a massive cyberattack potentially affecting the information of 3.7 million patients, health plan members and beneficiaries, providers. This attack is notable for all companies and not just healthcare providers covered by HIPAA. Reportedly, the attack occurred through the computer systems that process food and beverage purchases in the Banner system. In the incident, according to reports, the hackers gained access to the larger systems through the point-of-sale computer system that processes food and beverage purchases. The attack was discovered on July 13, and Banner believes hackers originally gained access on June 17. Continue Reading To Protect Data: Keep Your Network Access Close, and Your Vendors Closer
In a terse two-page order, Senior District Court Judge Paul Magnuson dismissed derivative claims brought against officers and directors of Target in connection with the 2013 holiday-season data breach. The dismissed claims, brought by Target shareholders on behalf of the corporation, alleged that the data breach had resulted from management failures by the defendant officers and directors. The Target board of directors appointed a special litigation committee (“SLC”) to investigate the shareholders’ allegations and determine whether or not to pursue the claims. The SLC, composed of two newly-appointed independent directors represented by independent counsel, recommended that Target not pursue claims against the officers and directors. The SLC then moved to dismiss, as did Target and the defendant officers and directors. Plaintiffs declined to oppose and the court’s order followed. Continue Reading Fizzled Suit Against Target Officers and Directors Raises Question as to the Value of Derivative Claims in Data Breach Cases
Two years after the massive holiday season theft of customers’ payment card data from Target point of sale terminals, the Target data breach litigation appears to be entering its final act. On Tuesday, December 1, Target entered into a settlement agreement with a class of banks and financial institutions that issued the credit and debit cards that were compromised in the 2013 event. The settlement was the result of negotiations following closely on the heels of an order by the court certifying a card issuer class. This last settlement resolves card issuers’ claims that were not previously resolved in Target’s August 2015 settlement with Visa, which provided $67 million to resolve claims made by Visa card issuing banks under Visa’s fraud resolution process. Also separate from this settlement is the $10 million settlement of the claims of consumers whose cards were compromised by the data theft, which Target concluded with the consumer class in March 2015. Continue Reading Target and Card Issuers Reach Final Data Breach Settlement
To take a step back from our continuing analysis of the situation and developments in Europe, there are other things going on in the privacy and data security world! Our October Wednesday Webinar is coming up and we will take a walk on the wild side: data security litigation. Registration is open now! Read more – Continue Reading Wednesday Webinar: Tricks, But No Treats – A Halloween Visit to the Frightening World of Data Security Litigation
Target confirmed a report in the Wednesday edition of The Wall Street Journal of a settlement with MasterCard concerning claims of card-issuers arising from Target’s 2013 data breach. The data breach, which occurred during the post-Thanksgiving holiday shopping season, compromised over 40 million credit and debit cards used to make purchases at Target stores. The settlement has not been presented to the court for approval but was described in a press release issued by Target after the close of business on Wednesday. The settlement proposes payment of up to $19 million (previous reports had indicated a fund of $20 million) to reimburse issuers of MasterCard-branded payment cards for costs arising from reissuance of cards compromised by the data breach. Target’s obligation to proceed with the settlement is conditioned on acceptance by issuers of at least 90% of the eligible payment card accounts. Target indicates in its press release that it intends to “defend itself vigorously against any assessments made by MasterCard on behalf of MasterCard issuers that do not accept their offers.” In order to accept Target’s offer, settling issuers must agree to release all claims that they may have against Target arising from the data breach. The press release also states that the potential $19 million cost of the MasterCard settlement is included in the total cost of the data breach disclosed Target’s public securities filings (reported at 2014 year end to be $252 million before insurance offsets).
According to Target’s Wednesday press release, issuers that accept the MasterCard settlement are expected to be paid “by the end of the second quarter of 2015.” Based on the description of the settlement and the expected timing, it appears that the MasterCard settlement will take place entirely outside of the card issuer class action that is still pending in federal court in Minnesota, although any releases given in connection with the MasterCard settlement would finally resolve claims of settling issuers as to MasterCard payment cards compromised by the breach. The proposed settlement would not affect outstanding claims on behalf of issuers of other types of payment cards (including Visa, Discovery and American Express cards).
On March 18, 2015 – just three months after denial of a motion to dismiss consumer claims arising from Target’s 2013 data breach – Target and the consumer class filed papers seeking approval of a settlement. The proposed settlement agreement creates a $10 million cash fund to be paid out to class members claiming actual damages arising from the settlement. Settlement funds will be distributed in a claims-made process to be run by a settlement administrator (the cost of which will be borne by Target). The maximum claim amount is $10,000. Claims without supporting documentation are capped at lower dollar amounts. Unclaimed funds will not revert to Target, but will be redistributed to class members submitting claims or as otherwise directed by the Court. The settlement also calls for non-cash relief consisting of the adoption of certain data security protection practices and appointment of a chief information security officer. Finally, class counsel have indicated that they will apply for $6.75 million in attorneys’ fees.
Written by Kevin McGinty
A recent ruling by Federal District Judge Paul Magnuson will permit most of the consumer claims in the Target data breach litigation to survive Target’s motion to dismiss. This most recent ruling follows on the heels of the court’s December 2 decision partially denying Target’s motion to dismiss consolidated complaint of the banks that issued the credit and debit cards that were subject to the breach. The late 2013 data theft that gave rise to the consumer and issuer bank claims was caused by malware placed by hackers on Target’s point-of-sale (“POS”) terminals. The malware allowed the hackers to record and steal payment card data as customers’ credit or debit cards were swiped. In the consolidated consumer complaint, 117 named plaintiffs allege that Target wrongfully failed to prevent or timely disclose the data theft. Plaintiffs also contend that Target failed to disclose the purported insufficiency of Target’s data security practices. The consumers assert claims under the laws of 49 states and the District of Columbia for negligence, breach of contract, breach of data notification statutes and violation of state unfair trade practice statutes. The consumer complaint also purports to assert those claims on behalf of a putative plaintiff class consisting of every Target customer whose credit or debit card information was stolen in the data breach. Continue Reading Consumer Claims Survive Motion to Dismiss in Target Data Breach Class Action
Written by Kevin Mc Ginty
Federal District Judge Paul Magnuson has ruled that banks that issued credit and debit cards to customers whose data was stolen in the December 2013 Target data breach could continue to litigate claims against Target for negligence and violation of Minnesota’s Plastic Security Card Act (“MPCSA”), Minn. Stat. § 325E.64. The claims of the issuer banks originated in multiple lawsuits that were among the 71 separate actions filed nationwide that the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the District of Minnesota. The December 2 ruling is significant both for its conclusion that Target owed a duty of care to issuer banks with respect to data security and for its rejection of Target’s argument that the MPSCA should not apply to all Target transactions nationwide, but instead should be limited to transactions that occurred in Minnesota stores. The decision does not, however, eliminate challenges that the issuer banks are likely to face both with respect to proving their allegations and obtaining certification of a plaintiff class.