UPDATE: On August 4, Neiman Marcus filed a motion asking the entire Seventh Circuit to reconsider the panel's ruling. In that motion, it argues that the case is enormously consequential, sets a dangerously low standard in cases involving only stolen credit card data, and violates Supreme Court precedent.
Neiman's primary argument is that because fraudulent charges to credit cards typically are reimbursed, these cases are different from cases involving social security numbers and other personal information that would allow the thief to commit identity theft. Neiman contends that because credit card hack victims have no actual harm, the theft of that kind of data is not enough by itself to permit a victim to sue and allowing the decision to stand will cause a flood of cases from which only lawyers will benefit.
Plaintiffs will soon oppose this request. Stay tuned.
Click here to read original post.
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.
