Breach Lawsuits Get a New Wrinkle

Supreme Court Ruling Adds Complexity

Case Remanded to Lower Court

In a significant development for data breach lawsuits, the Supreme Court ruled on June 25 in TransUnion that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) does not allow consumers to sue for intangible harm. This ruling has added a new layer of complexity to data breach lawsuits, which have been on the rise in recent years.

The TransUnion case stemmed from a data breach that exposed the personal information of millions of consumers. The plaintiffs in the case argued that they had suffered harm as a result of the breach, even though they had not suffered any financial losses or other tangible damages.

The Supreme Court ruled that the FCRA does not create a cause of action for intangible harm. The Court held that the statute is intended to protect consumers from financial harm, and that it does not provide redress for emotional distress or other non-economic injuries.

The Supreme Court's ruling has left lower courts to grapple with the question of how to handle data breach lawsuits in light of the new wrinkle created by TransUnion. Some courts have dismissed data breach lawsuits that do not allege any tangible harm, while other courts have allowed such lawsuits to proceed.

The Supreme Court's ruling in TransUnion is a reminder that data breach lawsuits are a rapidly evolving area of the law. As the courts continue to grapple with the implications of the TransUnion decision, it is likely that the landscape of data breach litigation will continue to change.