Key v. DSW, INC.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, in the context of a standing analysis, no claim exists “when the alleged injury is dependent upon the perceived risk of future actions of third parties not before the Court”
• finding that being subjected to an increased risk of identity theft or other related financial crimes when unauthorized persons obtained access to customers’ confidential financial information is not an actual or imminent injury
• granting defendants* motion to dismiss where plaintiffs sole allegation of injury was that she had “a substantial increased risk” of future harm
• distinguishing Sutton because the Sutton plaintiff had already been exposed to the harm as he was implanted with the defective medical device, the harm in that case did not depend on the criminal acts of third parties, and Sutton involved preserving public health
• class action dismissed for lack of standing where unauthorized persons obtained access to information of approximately 96,000 customers
• “[i]n the identity theft context, courts have embraced the general rule that an alleged increase in risk of future injury is not an “actual or imminent” injury”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).