Reinstatement of Krame to the Bar of Md.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding misuse of PII after theft is concrete injury- in-fact under TransUnion
• posting of Private Information on the dark web “establishes both a present injury . . . and a substantial risk of future injury”
• emphasizing the importance of Rule 23’s predominance requirement post-TransUnion “because a district court must ultimately weed out plaintiffs who do not have Article III standing before damages are awarded to a class”
• “We start from the basic principle that at the class certification stage only the named plaintiffs need have standing.”
• “[A] mere risk of future harm, without more, does not give rise to Article III standing for recovery of damages, even if it might give rise to Article III standing for purposes of injunctive relief.”
• “The fact that hackers took credit card data and corresponding personal information . . . and affirmatively posted that information for sale on [the dark web] is the misuse for standing purposes that we said was missing in Tsao.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).