Williams v. Taylor

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a risk of future harm “can satisfy concreteness” in a suit for damages if “additional, currently felt concrete harms” flowed from it
• finding that the “combination of financial and personal information is particularly concerning as it could be used to perpetrate both identity theft and fraud.”
• finding that “physical harm” and “a risk of future harm . . . [that] is sufficiently imminent and substantial” meet the concreteness requirement
• finding that the “combination of financial and personal information is particularly concerning as it could be used to perpetrate both identity theft and fraud.”
• holding, in the data breach context, that an alleged harm was sufficiently concrete because, among other things, there was actual “exposure of personally identifying information” on the dark web
• explaining that misuse of PII can establish Article III standing in identity theft cases

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).