Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Attacks/Breaches

10/17/2016
05:30 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

California Victims Of Yahoo Breach Pursue Claims In State, Not Federal Court

Plaintiffs hope to benefit from California's history of stricter cybersecurity and data privacy law.

Six lawsuits against Yahoo have been filed in California state courts since the company revealed its massive data breach of 500 million user accounts in September. Although federal cases are arising as well, it appears plaintiffs are trying to take advantage of a state court system that has historically been more sympathetic to breach victims' plight.  

The key benefit: "The Federal court has historically required proof of actual injury to have occurred as a result of a breach," explains privacy expert Rebecca Herold, of Rebecca Herold & Associates. "The [California] courts have not been as strict in requiring such evidence of injury."

Herold explains that California residents may choose to limit a class action case to plaintiffs who are California residents instead of being lumped in those all over the country; particularly since certain regulations, like the state's strict data breach notification law, will apply only to them.

However, the first suit filed in California was filed by New York resident Ronald Schwartz on behalf of all affected US users. The suit accuses Yahoo of "reckless disregard for the security of its users' personal information that it promised to protect." On Oct. 7, Schwartz's attorneys made a motion to relate his case to some of those filed by others.

The various cases invoke California's laws on negligence, personal injury, breach of contract, consumer protection and invasion of privacy, and data breach notification. California was a trailblazer in data breach notification law, and being that there is still suspicion about when precisely Yahoo discovered this breach, there may be concerns that they violated strict notification regulation by delaying reports.

"[California] has long been seen as consumer-friendly with strong support for privacy protection, for over 14 years now," says Herold. "With that history of being pro-consumer and pro-privacy, the plaintiffs from California may believe they are more likely to win their case than they would from a Federal court, which historically has seemed to support businesses more than consumers when it comes to privacy breaches."

Whether or not users can prove the breach has done damage to them, the breach has hurt Yahoo. So much damage has been done to the company that it may trigger a "material adverse change" clause in its merger agreement with Verizon, which would enable Verizon to renegotiate the $4.8 billion arrangement made between the two companies this summer.

 

Sara Peters is Senior Editor at Dark Reading and formerly the editor-in-chief of Enterprise Efficiency. Prior that she was senior editor for the Computer Security Institute, writing and speaking about virtualization, identity management, cybersecurity law, and a myriad ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Mark Potter
50%
50%
Mark Potter,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/18/2016 | 3:57:16 PM
Thanks Sara and Rebecca
Great article. Thanks Sara and Rebecca!
Sodinokibi Ransomware: Where Attackers' Money Goes
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  10/15/2019
Data Privacy Protections for the Most Vulnerable -- Children
Dimitri Sirota, Founder & CEO of BigID,  10/17/2019
7 SMB Security Tips That Will Keep Your Company Safe
Steve Zurier, Contributing Writer,  10/11/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: The old using of sock puppets for Shoulder Surfing technique. 
Current Issue
7 Threats & Disruptive Forces Changing the Face of Cybersecurity
This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at the biggest emerging threats and disruptive forces that are changing the face of cybersecurity today.
Flash Poll
2019 Online Malware and Threats
2019 Online Malware and Threats
As cyberattacks become more frequent and more sophisticated, enterprise security teams are under unprecedented pressure to respond. Is your organization ready?
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-17513
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-18
An issue was discovered in Ratpack before 1.7.5. Due to a misuse of the Netty library class DefaultHttpHeaders, there is no validation that headers lack HTTP control characters. Thus, if untrusted data is used to construct HTTP headers with Ratpack, HTTP Response Splitting can occur.
CVE-2019-8216
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-17
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions , 2019.012.20040 and earlier, 2017.011.30148 and earlier, 2017.011.30148 and earlier, 2015.006.30503 and earlier, and 2015.006.30503 and earlier have an out-of-bounds read vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to information disclosure .
CVE-2019-8217
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-17
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions , 2019.012.20040 and earlier, 2017.011.30148 and earlier, 2017.011.30148 and earlier, 2015.006.30503 and earlier, and 2015.006.30503 and earlier have an use after free vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution .
CVE-2019-8218
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-17
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions , 2019.012.20040 and earlier, 2017.011.30148 and earlier, 2017.011.30148 and earlier, 2015.006.30503 and earlier, and 2015.006.30503 and earlier have an out-of-bounds read vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to information disclosure .
CVE-2019-8219
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-17
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions , 2019.012.20040 and earlier, 2017.011.30148 and earlier, 2017.011.30148 and earlier, 2015.006.30503 and earlier, and 2015.006.30503 and earlier have an use after free vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution .