Photo of Kristin Bryan

Kristin Bryan is a litigator experienced in the efficient resolution of privacy, class action, and commercial disputes, including multidistrict litigation, in courts nationwide. As a natural extension of her experience litigating data privacy disputes, Kristin is also experienced in providing business-oriented privacy advice to a wide range of clients, with a particular focus on companies handling consumers’ personal data. Kristin is admitted to practice in both New York and Ohio and currently the co-chair of the International Association of Privacy Professional’s KnowledgeNet for Cleveland.

View full website bio.

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 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

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.


Continue Reading BIPA Survives Huge Challenge: Seventh Circuit Holds That BIPA Violations Cause Injury Sufficient for Article III Standing

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