MedChoice Financial, LLC v. ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the reasoning in Clapper “seems to preclude the Ninth Circuit’s even lower ‘not merely speculative’ standard for injury-in-fact” articulated in Krottner
• finding no standing where plaintiffs alleged their personal information was stolen and disseminated but did not,allege that their data had been misused
• finding no standing even though personal information was stolen from an insurance company’s computer network and was actually disseminated
• rejecting a similar argument because the named plaintiffs failed to allege that the data security breach actually prevented them from selling their information at the price they claimed the data was worth
• rejecting the argument that “the loss of privacy alone” was a cognizable injury
• dismissing an argument that the value of the plaintiffs’ PII diminished where they “failed to allege any facts explaining how their PII became less valuable to them (or lost all value) by the data breach”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).