Pros And Cons Of Data Breach

With the increase in technology, databases containing personal consumer information will only become more susceptible to hackers, leaving consumers to continue to face unfortunate risks of harm and economic injury, with the uncertainty of whether they can gain recourse in court. Because of the growing split in the lower courts over whether individuals whose personal information had been stolen as the result of a data breach have Article III standing to sue companies who failed to adequately protect the data of consumers, the Supreme Court needs to tackle this issue and bridge the gap between the circuits. Experts predict that hackers are gaining new and creative ways to take advantage of “this constant collection of personal data.” With such risk and uncertainty surrounding liability for data breaches, the Supreme Court’s

To help consumers gain recourse after a data breach, to encourage companies to enact better data protections and policies, and to bridge the circuit split, the Supreme Court should allow actual injury to be presumed if more than 30 percent of a company’s consumers are subjected to a data breach. Companies cannot continue to generate millions and billions of dollars of revenue from consumers, yet fail to adequately protect their personal information or to provide recourse when their failure to do so results in consumer information being stolen. The current Article III standing requirements in data breach cases oftentimes result in wholly unjust outcomes and consequences for data breach victims who are forced to throw their hands up and patiently wait to see what damage will be done with their personal information at the hands of devious hackers. Data breaches such as