The leading source of attorney, court and law firm news
Amazon Hit With Class Action Over Zappos Data Breach
- Details
- Published on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 09:59
Shoe retailer Zappos is facing a national class action suit one day after it warned customers that its servers had been hacked.
On Monday, the Amazon-owned shoe company sent a mass email stating that 24 million customer accounts had been breached. The incident resulted in hackers obtaining names, phone numbers, emails, encrypted passwords and the last four numbers of customer credit cards.
The lawsuit claims Amazon violated a part of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to properly encrypt and secure customer information, and seeks unspecified damages for 24 million customers.
The lead plaintiff in the case is a Texas woman but the suit was filed in federal court in Louisville, Kentucky on the grounds that Amazon has servers located in that state.
As these type of hacking incidents have become more common, so too have related lawsuits. So far, though, few of these lawsuits been successful because customers have been unable to show that they have been harmed by the data breaches.
The Kentucky lawsuit appears based in part on a novel legal theory that customers will now be more susceptible to phishing and other online scams because hackers have their email. It also alleges the plaintiffs suffered emotional distress. Other high-profile data breach cases such as one involving Sony’s Play Station have been based in part on state consumer laws.
Although courts have been reluctant to find that customers have been harmed by data breaches, there is evidence this may be changing. A security publication recently reported
that an appeals court allowed customers to claim they suffered harm in the form of having to buy insurance for identity theft.
Some media publications this week praised Zappos’ for having a pre-arranged plan to respond to the data theft. The company claims that its customer credit cards remained secure because they were stored in a separate server.
Appeals court in NYC hears nuclear plant arguments
- Details
- Published on Friday, 18 January 2013 07:30
A dispute between the state of Vermont and a Louisiana-based power company moved to a federal appeals court Monday, when a panel of judges questioned lawyers but did not signal who they'll side with in the tussle over the future of Vermont's only nuclear plant.
David C. Frederick, a lawyer for Vermont officials, urged the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a lower-court judge who said last year that the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant can continue to operate after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave it a 20-year extension to operate. The judge, J. Garvan Murtha in Brattleboro, Vt., had ruled that the federal government controlled the plant's fate as it relates to safety issues. Vermont so far has refused to license the plant after a state permit expired last March.
Frederick insisted that the state had important non-safety reasons for seeking a fresh evaluation of the plant, including the "substantial costs" that would be incurred by taxpayers if the plant was decommissioned. Murtha had cited comments about safety that were made by legislators to show the state was primarily concerned with plant safety issues, which he found are solely the responsibility of federal regulators.
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Announces Class Action
- Details
- Published on Wednesday, 04 April 2012 18:24
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of A123 Systems, Inc. between February 28, 2011 and March 23, 2012, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A123, together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures and sells rechargeable lithium-ion batteries and energy storage systems worldwide.
The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s operations and financial prospects. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had severe manufacturing deficiencies at its Livonia, Michigan manufacturing facility, which produced defective prismatic cells that resulted in premature failure of battery modules and packs; (2) as a result of the defective prismatic cells, A123 would likely be required – and incur substantial costs – to recall and replace the affected modules and packs, threatening the financial viability of the Company; and (3), as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased A123 securities between February 28, 2011 and March 23, 2012, you have certain rights, and have until June 1, 2012 to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.
www.glancylaw.com
Minn. high court says schools must report spending
- Details
- Published on Friday, 10 August 2012 22:51
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that school districts must register and report campaign spending related to ballot questions.
The ruling stems from a 2010 complaint against the St. Louis County School District. Complainants maintained district leaders and school board members violated state campaign laws by using public funds to promote the passage of a school building bond referendum, and not reporting it to the state as campaign spending.
In his opinion, Justice Alan Page writes there's nothing in state law to indicate the Legislature intended to exempt school districts from campaign reporting requirements.
The court's ruling also sent the case back to an administrative law judge to decide whether the district used public funds to improperly promote passage of the referendum, as complainants alleged.