Cyber insurance is top of mind lately due to heightened cyber vulnerabilities caused by an expanding remote workforce. Thankfully, Consumer Privacy World privacy pros provided some great guidance in their article “CGL Exclusions For Cyberattacks and Loss of Electronic Data: Is There A Gap In Your Coverage” published in the American Bar Association’s
A recent decision from the District of New Jersey recently added to a growing court split about what was required for a plaintiff to establish Article III standing in the context of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) litigation. Given the plaintiff-bar friendly ruling, more litigation (including more putative class action litigation) can be expected
On July 21, 2020, the FTC hosted its fifth annual PrivacyCon. This event is designed to inform on important and pressing topics in privacy and security, such as bias in AI and the use of cameras and voice technology. While focused on regulatory content, many of these topics directly relate to possible litigation risks. We’ve
On July 21, 2020 the FTC hosted its Fifth PrivacyCon-an event where researchers convene with FTC officials to discuss cutting-edge issues related to consumer privacy and security. Because PrivacyCon can be a harbinger of FTC activity, CPW attended PrivacyCon and reported on various developments of interest. Much of the focus this year was on healthcare
Here at Consumer Privacy World we have a group of experts tracking developments in consumer data privacy litigation that are intimately familiar with strategies in aggressively and efficiently defending class actions. Three of those experts authored a timely article that was published in Law360 offering their insights – please find HERE.
It happens frequently: A plaintiff commences litigation in state court and for various strategic reasons, a defendant decides it would be better off removing the case to federal court. However, recent case law from the Supreme Court regarding what disputes may be removed resulted in a groundbreaking ruling from the Eleventh Circuit in a FCRA
Part I: First, Check Your Rear-View Mirror
“[M]odern enterprise and invention have, through invasions upon . . . privacy, subjected [people] to mental pain and distress, far greater than could be inflicted by mere bodily injury.”[1]
Legal commentators today commonly characterize data privacy and cybersecurity litigation as a “tidal wave”[2] approaching
The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) went into effect in 2008 and has been heavily litigated since. This week a court held that airline workers who filed a putative class action under BIPA regarding their employer’s practice of collecting employees’ fingerprints for timekeeping had to pursue their claims in arbitration and/or before an adjustment
The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) went into effect in 2008 and since then has been heavily litigated in state and federal court. There has been an emerging divide between state and federal courts regarding when a plaintiff has standing to pursue claims for alleged violations of BIPA—state courts have been quick to allow enforcement of the statute in the absence of any actual harm, while federal courts have been less keen on permitting cases to continue where the Plaintiff did not suffer a “concrete” harm.
Well clarity has just come at the federal level—and this is a very big deal for companies doing business in Illinois. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held yesterday that BIPA Plaintiffs do have standing to recover damages in federal court after all—at least in certain cases. See Bryant v. Compass Grp. USA, Inc., 20-1443 (decided May 5, 2020). That means these cases—with their potential for large class action damages—can continue at the federal level.
For purposes of FCRA litigation, a plaintiff cannot strategically withhold arguments about the accuracy of information provided to a CRA when these arguments were not raised in the plaintiff’s original dispute with reporting agencies. This principle was made clear in Garcia v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, although the procedural history of the case is somewhat unusual. In Garcia, the court reversed an earlier denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment on a FCRA claim on a motion for reconsideration and entered summary judgment for defendant – which is extremely uncommon. Case No. 2:17-cv-01721-RFB-VCF, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68499 (D. Nev. Apr. 20, 2020).
Continue Reading No Target Moving: FCRA Plaintiff Cannot Sue to Remedy Inaccurate Reporting Not Raised in Original Dispute to Reporting Agencies