Retail Data Breach Liability Shield May Get Gutted
Written by Fred J. AunOctober 8th, 2009
In a move that has the potential to make it much more difficult for retailers to defend themselves against civil data breach lawsuits, the judge overseeing the Hannaford data breach case has reversed himself. The Maine Supreme Court is now involved.
For years, retailers involved in major data breaches had little to worry about from U.S. courts, thanks to credit card zero-liability programs. Those programs made sure that consumers didn't lose money from the breaches, which in turn made it almost impossible to successfully prosecute those retailers in civil courts. Civil courts are fundamentally based on making plaintiffs financially whole. But there's now the possibility that those retail protections could go away because a Maine judge—who is overseeing the data breach litigation involving Hannaford—has asked the state Supreme Court for permission to do so. This is the same judge who had earlier dismissed the accusations against Hannaford. He has since changed his mind.
This Story Is Only Available For Premium Subscribers. Click Or Login In Below To Read The Rest Of This Story.
Already a Subscriber? Login Here
One Comment | Read Retail Data Breach Liability Shield May Get Gutted
Leave a Reply
Readers, specifically those who want to comment on a story:
Our Comment SPAM system is getting very aggressive these days and has been blocking legitimate comments. If you post a comment and don't see it appear within 2 hours or so, can you please send a heads-up to customer-service@storefrontbacktalk? Ideally, please include the time you posted the comment. That will allow us to try and hunt for it. Thanks! P.S. We're working on fixing the system, but we don't want to lose any valuable comments in the meantime.
Our Comment SPAM system is getting very aggressive these days and has been blocking legitimate comments. If you post a comment and don't see it appear within 2 hours or so, can you please send a heads-up to customer-service@storefrontbacktalk? Ideally, please include the time you posted the comment. That will allow us to try and hunt for it. Thanks! P.S. We're working on fixing the system, but we don't want to lose any valuable comments in the meantime.
-Ed
October 9th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Short of a financial meltdown it is very difficult for judges to continue to ignore millions of angry citizens.
The PCI concept of trying to block criminals from breaking in and then being confused and amazed after they got in, was incredibly naive. In simple terms, they need to provide a motion detector with its own alarm just in case a door or window is pried open.
Michael Cherry, Cherry Biometrics Inc.
Vice Chair, Digital Technology Committee
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers