Jul 032013
 
 July 3, 2013  Breaches, Business, Court

David F. McDowell, D. Reed Freeman Jr., and Jacob M. Harper, Morrison & Foerster LLP write:

While we have seen a new wave of privacy class actions, the issues facing the federal courts are the same: how to reconcile an inarticulable discomfort with data methods asserted in privacy class actions with their constitutional mandate to address only plaintiffs with standing: the requirement that courts remedy only “concrete” and “particularized” injuries.

This article addresses how federal courts are dealing with notions of privacy harm in the online tracking context. While courts have historically told privacy plaintiffs to seek redress elsewhere—Congress, agencies, the states—district judges have been increasingly open to new notions of harm that allow them, rather than other government bodies, to address the growing but amorphous conception that something about the way their gadgets work does not feel right. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, which held that fear of injury in context of government surveillance does not constitute a cognizable injury,8 may cause those courts to reverse once again and dismiss such suits.

Read their review and discussion on Bloomberg Law.

h/t, Sheila Kaplan

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.