Reilly Ex Rel. Pluemacher v. Ceridian Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiff suffered no actionable injury-in-fact where the plaintiffs PII was accessed but had not yet been used for any fraudulent or unlawful activity
• concluding that “[i]n data breach cases where no misuse is alleged . . . there has been no injury”
• holding that an increased risk of identity theft is not an injury because there was no evidence that the data has been, or ever will be, misused
• holding that plaintiff’s allegations of an increased risk of identity theft as a result of a security breach were merely hypothetical, future injuries and, therefore, failed to establish standing
• holding that even where names, social security numbers, birth dates, and bank accounts may have been exposed to a hacker, there was no injury-in-fact because “no identifiable taking occurred; all that is known is that a firewall was penetrated”
• concluding data breach victims’ “allegations of hypothetical, future injury do not establish standing under Article III”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).