REGULATION OF COMPANIES’ DATA SECURITY PRACTICES UNDER THE FTC ACT AND CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW

By Kathryn F. Russo¹

I. Introduction

News of data breaches dominates the headlines. Technology is advancing at a dizzying speed. Companies are collecting more sensitive personal information about consumers than ever before while hackers are devising new strategies to access this information.

In the context of this data-driven world, it is no surprise that companies’ data security practices are coming under increasingly strict scrutiny. The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that approximately 7 percent of all U.S. residents age 16 or older were victims of identity theft in 2012.² Both the Federal Trade Commission and the California Attorney General have made it a priority to pursue enforcement actions against companies that do not have reasonable data security practices.

For over a decade the FTC has used its authority under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act³ to enforce the prohibition against unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the field of data security. In evaluating whether a company’s data security practices are unfair, the FTC uses a reasonableness standard and considers each company’s data security practices on a case-by-case basis. The majority of the FTC’s data security enforcement actions have resulted in settlements. However, for the first time, the FTC is facing a challenge to its authority to regulate companies’ data security practices.

Companies also face challenges to their data security programs under California law. The California Attorney General has made clear that investigating breaches of personal information is an enforcement priority. Further, companies that experience data breach incidents face the additional burden of private lawsuits. Even though litigants bringing data security lawsuits have faced hurdles establishing constitutional standing under Article III and have had difficulty establishing a quantifiable harm, companies have chosen to settle these cases for significant sums.

Companies that store, transmit, and use consumer information would be well advised to reassess their data security practices to reduce the likelihood of data breaches and to avoid costly regulatory and private litigations that may arise following a breach.

[Page 201]

II. The FTC’s Enforcement of Reasonable Data Security Practices

A. The FTC Evaluates Reasonableness of Data Security Practices on a Case-By-Case Basis

Pursuant to Section 5 of the FTC Act, Congress delegated broad authority to the FTC to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive trade practices.⁴ Under Section 5 of the FTC Act, an act or practice is unfair if the act or practice (1) "causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers," (2) "which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves," and (3) "not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition."⁵ The FTC assesses these three factors whenever it examines whether a particular practice is "unfair."⁶

In the context of evaluating a company’s data security practices, the FTC has held that a company’s failure to implement reasonable data security practices can be considered an unfair practice under this three-part standard.⁷ First, the FTC has stated that failing to reasonably protect consumers’ personal and financial information can cause significant injury to consumers.⁸ Such failures increase the likelihood of unauthorized charges to consumers’ financial accounts and put consumers at an increased risk of identity theft. Second, the FTC has stated that consumers cannot reasonably avoid such harms because the consumer has no way of independently knowing whether the company has unreasonable security practices and turning over confidential financial and personal information is generally required of a consumer to complete a transaction with a company.⁹ Third, the FTC has stated that where a company employs unreasonable data security practices and does not implement low cost technologies that reduce the risk of data breaches, harm to consumers caused by a company’s unreasonable data security practices is not outweighed by the countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.¹⁰ Although a hacker may devise a way to breach even the most expensive state-of-the-art data security measure, requiring onerous data security measures could raise costs to businesses therefore making them less competitive and ultimately harming consumers. Therefore, this factor is flexible and allows the FTC to determine whether a company’s data security measures employed are sufficient, given the particular situation.

Accordingly, the FTC uses its authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to evaluate a company’s data security practices on a case-by-case basis, considering the unique characteristics of the business, and current security threats and technology. In a recent statement before Congress, the Commission emphasized that "[i]n the data security context, the FTC conducts its investigations with a focus on reasonableness — a company’s data security measures must be reasonable in light of the sensitivity and volume of consumer information it holds, the size and complexity of its data operations, and the cost of available tools to improve security and reduce vulnerabilities."¹¹ In considering whether a company’s data security practices are reasonable, the Commission "examines such factors as whether the risks at issue were well know or reasonably foreseeable, the costs and benefits of implementing various protections, and the tools that are currently available and used in the marketplace."¹² Further, the Commission stated that "it does not require perfect security; that reasonable and appropriate security is a continuous process of assessing and addressing risks; that there is no one-size-fits-all data security program; and that the mere fact that a breach occurred does not mean that a company has violated the law."¹³

[Page 202]

The FTC has undertaken efforts to provide guidance to companies in developing reasonable data security programs. The FTC publically publishes its complaints and consent decrees related to its data security enforcement actions.¹⁴ Additionally, the FTC holds workshops on issues that affect consumer data. Its recent workshops include a workshop on the Internet of Things,¹⁵ a workshop on mobile security issues,¹⁶ and a program on child identity theft.¹⁷ Further, the Commission published a business guide on data security with the goal of helping companies develop reasonable data security programs.¹⁸ Companies should review the consent decrees, workshops, and other guidance published by the FTC to help assess whether their data security program is reasonable.

B. The FTC is Pursuing Data Security Enforcement Actions Under the Unfairness Prong

For over a decade, the FTC has used its authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to enforce the prohibition against unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the field of consumer privacy and data security. Initially, the FTC focused its enforcement efforts on companies’ "deceptive" data security practices.¹⁹ In 2005, the Commission began pursuing enforcement actions against companies engaging in "unfair" data security practices.²⁰

[Page 203]

Companies should expect and be prepared for the FTC to continue to aggressively pursue actions against companies for engaging in unfair data security practices. Recently, the Commission released a report stating that the Commission has "redoubled its efforts to protect consumer privacy, including through law enforcement. . . ."²¹ Further, at the beginning of this year, the Commission marked its 50th data security settlement.²² Over 20 of these settlements included allegations that a company’s failure to reasonably safeguard consumer data was an unfair practice.²³

Companies should be aware that the majority of the Commission’s data security investigations have resulted in consent decrees. In the context of data security actions, the Commission’s consent decrees typically require a company to establish, implement, and maintain a comprehensive information security program and to obtain, on a biannual basis, an assessment and report from a third party professional regarding the company’s data security safeguards for a period of time ranging from 10 to 20 years.²⁴ However, recently two companies have challenged the FTC’s authority to regulate companies’ data security practices as described below.

C. Two Companies Have Challenged the FTC’s Authority to Regulate Data Security Practices

Although the majority of the Commission’s data security investigations have resulted in consent decrees, recently, two companies, LabMD Inc. and Wyndham Worldwide Corporation and three of its subsidiaries, are challenging the FTC’s authority to regulate data security practices of businesses.²⁵ Both LabMD and Wyndham argue that the FTC lacks authority to regulate companies’ data security practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act, and that the FTC has failed to provide fair notice of what constitutes reasonable data security standards.²⁶ As discussed below, the Commission issued an order in the LabMD case affirming its authority under the FTC Act to regulate and enforce data security practices of businesses.²⁷ Wyndham’s motion to dismiss the FTC’s complaint is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey following oral argument.

[Page 204]

Specifically, in the LabMD case, the FTC filed an administrative complaint against LabMD, alleging that it "engaged in a number of practices that, taken together, failed to provide reasonable and appropriate security for personal information on its computer networks."²⁸ LabMD is a clinical laboratory that conducts tests on specimen samples from patients and reports the test results to patients’ health care providers.²⁹ In conducting such tests, LabMD obtains a variety of types of sensitive personal information about patients.³⁰ The FTC alleges that as a result of LabMD’s security failures, a file containing the personal information of approximately 9,300 patients was shared to a public file-sharing network, Limewire.³¹ LabMD filed a motion to dismiss the FTC’s complaint, arguing, among other things, that the FTC lacks authority to regulate companies’ data security practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act and that the FTC has failed to provide fair notice of what constitutes reasonable data security standards.³²

On January 16, 2014, the Commission issued an order denying LabMD’s motion to dismiss and held, among other things, that the FTC Act’s prohibition of "unfair . . . acts or practices" applies to a company’s failure to implement reasonable and appropriate data security measures.³³ In support of its holding, the Commission references Congress’ intent to delegate broad authority to the Commission to proscribe activities that qualify as "unfair acts or practices," as well as the Commission’s long history of applying the three "unfairness" factors to prohibit a wide range of unfair acts and practices.³⁴ The Commission also rejected LabMD’s due process arguments that the Commission must first adopt regulations before bringing enforcement actions in the field of data security.³⁵ In support of its holding, the FTC reasoned that the three-part statutory standard governing whether an act or practice is unfair provides fair notice of what conduct is prohibited. The FTC also highlighted the fact that companies are subject to tort liability for violating uncodified standards of care on a regular basis.³⁶

[Page 205]

Additionally, in its case against Wyndham, the FTC alleges that Wyndham’s "failure to maintain reasonable security" allowed intruders to obtain unauthorized access to Wyndham’s computer networks and such security failures resulted in "more than $10.6 million in fraud loss, and the export of hundreds of thousands of consumers’ payment card account information to a domain registered in Russia."³⁷ In the complaint, the FTC identifies ten data security failures that it alleges unreasonably and unnecessarily exposed consumers’ personal data to unauthorized access and theft.³⁸ Wyndham filed a motion to dismiss the FTC’s complaint arguing, among other things, that the FTC lacks authority to regulate data security under Section 5 of the FTC Act, and that the FTC failed to provide fair notice of what constitutes reasonable data security standards.³⁹ Currently, Wyndham’s motion to dismiss the FTC’s complaint is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey following oral argument. This will be the first time a court decides whether the FTC has authority to regulate data security practices of companies pursuant to Section 5 of the FTC Act.

Over time the FTC’s authority to enforce companies’ data security practices will be fully fleshed out. In the interim, companies should pay attention to the guidance provided by the FTC, discussed above, regarding reasonable data security practices in order to prevent data breaches and avoid costly regulatory enforcement actions.

III. The California Attorney General and Data Security Enforcement Actions

A. The UCL and Data Security

Pursuant to California’s unfair competition law, any "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice" is prohibited.⁴⁰ The California Supreme Court has affirmed that an act or practice may be independently actionable as ‘unfair,’ even if the act or practice is "not specifically proscribed by some other law."⁴¹ In the context of consumer cases, there is a three-way split among the courts as to what definition of "unfair" should be applied.⁴²

First, some courts apply the definition of unfair set forth in the California Supreme Court’s Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.⁴³ decision. In Cel-Tech, the California Supreme Court stated that in competitor cases "unfair" should apply to "conduct that threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition."⁴⁴ Second, some courts apply the accepted definition of unfair business practice in place before the Cel-Tech decision, which is that "an ‘unfair’ business practice occurs when that practice ‘offends an established public policy or when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.’"⁴⁵ Typically, a broad balancing test is used to determine whether a practice is unfair under this definition. Third, some California courts of appeal have applied the Federal Trade Commission’s three-prong definition of unfair as described above.⁴⁶

[Page 206]

As discussed above, the FTC has interpreted its three-prong unfairness test, which is generally regarded as the most restrictive of the three possible tests for unfairness under the UCL,⁴⁷ as covering lax data security practices that result in breaches. Since even the most restrictive test under the UCL has been interpreted to cover unreasonable data security practices that result in breaches, the question regarding which unfairness test should be applied would likely not change the outcome. Under any of these tests, unreasonable data security practices likely expose companies to potential liability under the UCL. Therefore, companies should take care to ensure that their data security practices would not be deemed unfair under any of the three standards. Additionally, companies should be aware that the California Customer Records Act requires a business that owns or licenses personal information about a California resident to "implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information, to protect the personal information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure."⁴⁸ Although there have not been many actions brought alleging violations of this statutory provision, companies should make sure that they are maintaining reasonable and appropriate security procedures as a precautionary measure.

B. The Attorney General Has Made Investigating Data Breaches An Enforcement Priority

The California Attorney General has made clear that investigating breaches of personal information is an enforcement priority. In July 2012, the California Attorney General announced the creation of the Privacy Enforcement and Protection Unit in the Department of Justice, which focuses on "protecting consumer and individual privacy through civil prosecution of state and federal privacy laws."⁴⁹ The Data Breach Report released by the California Attorney General in July 2013, found that "[m]ore than 2.5 million Californians were put at risk by data breaches in 2012" and "[m]ore than 1.4 million Californians would not have been put at risk, and 28 percent of the data breaches would not have required notification, if the data had been encrypted."⁵⁰ The California Attorney General’s Office has stated that it "will make it an enforcement priority to investigate breaches involving unencrypted personal information, and encourage [their] allied law enforcement agencies to similarly prioritize these investigations."⁵¹ Further the Attorney General’s data breach report states, "[c]ompanies and agencies have legal and moral obligations to protect personal information with reasonable and appropriate safeguards."⁵²

[Page 207]

Companies that store, transmit, and use consumer information about Californians should reassess their data security programs to make sure they include reasonable and appropriate safeguards for personal information. Recently, on January 24, 2014, the California Attorney General’s office filed a complaint in state court against the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. alleging Kaiser violated California’s unfair competition law.⁵³ Specifically, the complaint alleges that Kaiser violated the UCL by publicly posting and displaying the Social Security numbers of more than 20,000 Californians on an unencrypted hard drive, in violation of California Civil Code section 1798.85, and delayed notification of security breach in violation of California Civil Code section 1798.82.⁵⁴ The California Attorney General’s action against Kaiser highlights the growing trend of state attorneys general increasing their role in protecting consumers’ data privacy and security. Companies should expect more data security enforcement actions to come and should take care to ensure their data security practices do not run afoul of California law.

IV. Private Data Security Actions

In addition to state and federal regulatory enforcement actions, companies that experience data breach incidents may face the additional burden of private lawsuits. The data breach class actions brought to date usually arise from an unauthorized third party gaining access to a company’s stored data and involve claims that the company failed to properly secure such data. Litigants bringing data breach lawsuits have faced hurdles establishing constitutional standing under Article III and have had difficulty establishing a quantifiable harm. Even in the face of these difficulties, plaintiffs have still brought data breach cases against companies that result in settlement due to the enormous cost of litigation.⁵⁵

Practitioners and companies should take note of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Krottner v. Starbucks Corp. in which the court held that "Plaintiffs-Appellants, whose personal information has been stolen but not misused, have suffered an injury sufficient to confer standing under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution."⁵⁶ A recent class action lawsuit, In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Sec. Breach Litigation,⁵⁷ arising out of criminal intrusion into a computer network system, cited Krottner and held that defendants had established Article III standing because plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a loss of money or property as a result defendants’ alleged unfair business practices. The court stated, ".. where sensitive personal data, such as names, addresses, social security numbers and credit card numbers are improperly disclosed or disseminated into the public, increasing the risk of future harm, injury-in-fact has been recognized."⁵⁸ Further, the court held that "even though Sony alleges no harm has yet occurred, in certain circumstances, . future harm may be regarded as a cognizable loss sufficient to satisfy Article Ill’s injury-in-fact requirement."⁵⁹

[Page 208]

Following the Krottner and Sony decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a non-data security related case, Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA,⁶⁰ that plaintiffs "lack Article III standing because they cannot demonstrate that the future injury they purportedly fear is certainly impending and because they cannot manufacture standing by incurring costs in anticipation of non-imminent harm."⁶¹ Although Clapper is not a data security case, the reasoning behind the decision is likely to be used to argue that plaintiffs alleging future harm resulting from data breaches is not sufficient for purposes of Article III standing.

Indeed, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Clapper was raised to challenge plaintiffs’ Article III standing in the Sony case.⁶² In light of the Clapper decision, the District Court reconsidered its prior ruling that plaintiffs’ had sufficiently alleged that their sensitive personal information was wrongfully disseminated, increasing the risk of future harm, regardless of whether actual harm had occurred.⁶³ After reconsidering its prior ruling, the District Court rejected Sony’s argument that Clapper tightened the "injury-in-fact" analysis set forth by the Ninth Circuit in Krottner.⁶⁴ Instead the District Court found that "although the Supreme Court’s word choice in Clapper differed from the Ninth Circuit’s word choice in Krottner, stating that the harm must be ‘certainly impending,’ rather than ‘real and immediate,’ the Supreme Court’s decision in Clapper did not set forth a new Article III framework, nor did the Supreme Court’s decision overrule previous precedent requirement that the harm be ‘real and immediate."⁶⁵ The District Court stated, "the Supreme Court’s decision in Clapper simply reiterated an already well-established framework for assessing whether a plaintiff had sufficiently alleged an ‘injury-in-fact’ for purposes of establishing Article III standing."⁶⁶

[Page 209]

Although plaintiffs in Sony have survived defendants’ motion to dismiss, the question remains as to whether plaintiffs can establish the required quantifiable harm to succeed. Even if such lawsuits are ultimately untenable, the cost of litigation represents a real threat to businesses that store, use, and transmit consumer information.

V. Conclusion

With both the FTC and the California Attorney General declaring it a priority to pursue data security enforcement actions, companies can expect to see more enforcement actions in the near future. Companies should take a proactive approach and assess whether their data security practices are reasonable and appropriate given their unique circumstances. Companies should make use of the resources provided by the FTC and the California Attorney General’s office to assist them in protecting themselves against costly regulatory and private actions.

[Page 210]

——–

Notes:

^1. Kathryn F. Russo is the Deputy General Counsel and an Associate at Goldberg, Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP in Los Angeles. The opinions set forth in this article are hers alone and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the firm or its clients.

^2. See Bureau of Justice Statistics, Victims of Identity Theft, 2012 (Dec. 2013), available at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vit12.pdf.

^3. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1).

^4. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1).

^5. 15 U.S.C. § 45(n); FTC v. Neovi, Inc., 604 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2010).

^6. FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness, appended to Int’l Harvester Co., 104 F.T.C. 949, 1070 (1984), available at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc-policy-statement-on-unfairness. Of course, to the extent that a company has made an explicit promise to protect consumers’ personal and financial information and then fails to protect that information, such action constitutes a misrepresentation that can be challenged under the FTC Act’s prohibition against "deceptive acts or practices."

^7. See In the Matter of LabMD, Inc., Order Denying Respondent LabMD’s Motion To Dismiss (January 16, 2014) ("LabMD Order").

^8. See LabMD Order at 18-19.

^9. See Id. at 19.

^10. Id.

^11. Prepared Statement of the Federal Trade Commission, "Protecting Consumer Information: Can Data Breaches Be Prevented?" before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, February 5, 2014, ("2014 Commission Testimony"), available at http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/prepared-statement-federal-trade-commission-protecting-consumer-information-can-data-breaches-beZ140205databreaches.pdf.

^12. 2014 Commission Testimony at 4.

^13. Id.

^14. See http://business.ftc.gov/legal-resources/8Z35.

^15. FTC Workshop, Internet of Things: Privacy & Security in a Connected World (Nov. 19, 2013), available at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/internet-of-things/.

^16. FTC Workshop, Mobile Security: Potential Threats and Solutions (June 4, 2013), available at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/mobile-security/.

^17. FTC Workshop, Stolen Futures: A Forum on Child Identity Theft ( July 12, 2011), available at http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2011/07/stolen-futures-forum-child-identity-theft.

^18. See Protecting Personal Information: A Guide for Business, available at http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus69-protecting-personal-information-guide-business.

^19. See LabMD Order at 9.

^20. Id.

^21. FTC Report, Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change, Recommendations for Businesses and Policymakers, (March 2012), available at http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-commission-report-protecting-consumer-privacy-era-rapid-change-recommendati ons/120326privacyreport.pdf.

^22. Commission Statement Marking the FTC’s 50th Data Security Settlement, (January 31, 2014), available at http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/140131gmrstatement.pdf.

^23. 2014 Commission Testimony at 3-4.

^24. See, e.g., Dave & Busters, Inc., No. C-4291 (F.T.C. May 20, 2010), available at http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2010/06/100608davebustersdo.pdf; BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., No. C-4148 (F.T.C. Sept. 20, 2005), available at http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2005/09/092305do0423160.pdf; DSW Inc., No. C-4157 (F.T.C. March 7, 2006), available at http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2006/03/0523096c4157dswdecisionandorder.pdf.

^25. Federal Trade Commission v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, et al., Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Wyndham Hotels & Resorts LLC (D. Ariz. Aug. 27, 2012) ("Wyndham Motion to Dismiss"); In the Matter of LabMD, Inc., Respondent LabMD, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint With Prejudice and to Stay Administrative Proceedings (Nov. 12, 2013) ("LabMD Motion to Dismiss").

^26. See Wyndham Motion to Dismiss; LabMD Motion to Dismiss.

^27. See LabMD Order.

^28. In the Matter of LabMD, Inc., Complaint, ¶ 10 (August 28, 2013) ("LabMD Complaint").

^29. Id. ¶3.

^30. Id. ¶6.

^31. Id. ¶17-19.

^32. See LabMD Motion to Dismiss.

^33. LabMD Order at 2.

^34. Id. at 3-6.

^35. Id. at 2.

^36. Id. at 17.

^37. Federal Trade Commission v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, et al., First Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Other Equitable Relief, ¶ 2, (D. Ariz. Aug. 9, 2012) ("Wyndham Complaint").

^38. Wyndham Complaint ¶ 24(a)-(j).

^39. See Wyndham Motion to Dismiss.

^40. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.

^41. Cel-Tech Comm’ns, Inc., v. Los Angeles Cellular Tele. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999).

^42. See Durell v. Sharp Healthcare, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1350, 1364 (2010); Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Servs. Inc., 177 Cal. App. 4th 1235, 1254-55 (2009); Klein v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 202 Cal. App. 4th 1342, 1376 (2012).

^43. Cel-Tech, 20 Cal. 4th 163.

^44. Cel-Tech, 20 Cal. 4th at 187.

^45. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal. App. 4th 1093, 1104 (1996).

^46. See Klein v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 202 Cal. App. 4th at 1376.

^47. See David L. Belt, Should the FTC’s Current Criteria for Determining "Unfair Acts or Practices" Be Applied to State "Little FTC Acts"?, 10-11, The Antitrust Source, (Feb. 2010).

^48. California Civil Code § 1798.81.5(b).

^49. See Press Release, Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Announces Privacy Enforcement and Protection Unit (July 19, 2012), available at https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-announces-privacy-enforcement-and-protection.

^50. Data Breach Report 2012, p. iii, Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, California Department of Justice ("Data Breach Report"), available at http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/privacy/2012data_breach_rpt.pdf.

^51. Data Breach Report at iv., 14.

^52. Id. at 14.

^53. The People of the State of California v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Case No. RG14711370, Cal. Sup. Ct., Alameda Co. (January 24, 2014).

^54. Id.

^55. See Johansson-Dohrmann v. CBR Sys., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103863 (S.D. Cal. 2013); In re TD Ameritrade Account Holder Litig., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103222 (N.D. Cal. 2011).

^56. Krottner v. Starbucks Corp., 628 F.3d 1139, 1140 (9th Cir. 2010).

^57. In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 903 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Cal. 2012).

^58. Sony, 903 F. Supp. 2d at 958.

^59. Id.

^60. Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013).

^61. Id. at 1155.

^62. See In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7353 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014).

^63. Id. at 22.

^64. Id. at 25.

^65. Id.

^66. Id. at 25-26.