Plaintiffs argue that compromised information creates a substantial risk of future misuse sufficient for standing. Courts assess the data type, whether the breach was intentional, and evidence of actual misuse among the population.
TransUnion requires the risk be sufficiently imminent.
Alternative Names:
Future Harm Risk|Increased Risk Theory
Why it Matters?
Data sensitivity drives the analysis, since exposure of Social Security numbers and financial account data supports the risk theory far more readily than email addresses or names alone. Evidence that the breach was accidental rather than a targeted attack also weakens the inference of intended misuse. Establishing that no class member experienced misuse across an extended period following the breach is the most persuasive rebuttal.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
What drives the risk analysis?
What is the most persuasive rebuttal?
