ARTICLE
17 August 2016

Florida District Court Dismisses Wendy's Data Breach Class Action For Lack Of Standing

KL
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP

Contributor

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer is a world-leading global law firm, where our ambition is to help you achieve your goals. Exceptional client service and the pursuit of excellence are at our core. We invest in and care about our client relationships, which is why so many are longstanding. We enjoy breaking new ground, as we have for over 170 years. As a fully integrated transatlantic and transpacific firm, we are where you need us to be. Our footprint is extensive and committed across the world’s largest markets, key financial centres and major growth hubs. At our best tackling complexity and navigating change, we work alongside you on demanding litigation, exacting regulatory work and complex public and private market transactions. We are recognised as leading in these areas. We are immersed in the sectors and challenges that impact you. We are recognised as standing apart in energy, infrastructure and resources. And we’re focused on areas of growth that affect every business across the world.
The court dismissed, without prejudice, a proposed class action over a January data breach at Wendy's, finding that allegations of two fraudulent charges allegedly made to representative plaintiff's debit card were insufficient to establish Article III standing.
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Torres v. The Wendy's Co., No. 6:16-cv-00210 (M.D. Fla. July 15, 2016)

The court dismissed, without prejudice, a proposed class action over a January data breach at Wendy's, finding that allegations of two fraudulent charges allegedly made to representative plaintiff's debit card were insufficient to establish Article III standing. In dismissing the case with leave to replead, the court found that the harm plaintiff alleged was "highly speculative." Applying the standard from the Eleventh Circuit's 2012 decision in Resnick v. AvMed, the court noted that even assuming that plaintiff's two fraudulent charges would constitute actual identity theft, plaintiff had not alleged any monetary harm stemming from the two fraudulent charges, including that the two fraudulent charges were unreimbursed by his credit union. View the decision.

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More