Higdon v. Wayne County Security Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that a threatened injury would only be more imminent if information had already 19 been misused
• noting that “California legislative intent is clear” as 12 to the cited statutes, allowing plaintiffs to adequately allege a claim under the UCL’s unfair 13 prong
• finding that plaintiffs were injured when they alleged they did not receive the benefit-of-the-bargain because had they known Adobe was not providing reasonable security, they would not have paid as much for Adobe products
• taking judicial notice of Adobe’s terms of use and privacy policies, which were incorporated by reference into the complaint
• holding plaintiffs had UCL 19 standing where “[f]our of the six Plaintiffs allege they personally spent more on Adobe 20 products than they would had they known Adobe was not providing the reasonable security 21 Adobe represented it was providing”
• standing conferred where plaintiffs alleged they incurred expense to mitigate risk of increased risk of criminal fraud resulting from data breach

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).