Failure to Inform Promptly of Data Breach
Quest Diagnostics calls itself “the world’s leading provider of diagnostic information services.” LabCorp is also a global laboratory offering diagnostic services. Quest uses Optum360, LLC for billing collections, and both Optum and LabCorp use AMCA for collections. This means that when AMCA suffered an extended data breach, medical and personally identifying information (PII) for millions of people was exposed.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is one of the leading medical laboratory services company in the country. But it subcontracted collection work to a company called Optum360, LLC, which in turn subcontracted work to Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. (RMCB). The result? The personal information of Quest customers was exposed in a data breach at a company they had never given their information to.
Data breaches are bad enough. But when a company does not promptly tell customers that their information has been exposed, people get angry. The complaint for this class action alleges that Five Below, Inc. suffered a data breach and waited for a month before telling its customers.
The complaint for this class action alleges that Marriott International, Inc. failed to use industry-standard security measures and failed to encrypt sensitive personal information. It also claims that Marriott failed to notice the data breach for as long as four years.
Data breaches have become serious hazards for companies who store information and for their employees and customers. It seems therefore all the more maddening when data breaches occur not because of sophisticated hacking techniques but because of gullibility to phishing, as the complaint for this class action charges in the case of the data breach at ABM Industries, Inc. Personal and biometric information was stolen, but the company did not inform employees until seven months after the breach was discovered.
The complaint for this class action claims that in the past five years, almost every major data breach at retail chain stores has involved malware on point of sale (POS) systems—yet retailers still do not take adequate precautions to vulnerable protect customer data. In this case, it was Saks & Company’s systems that were breached, and the issue is not only the breach but Saks’s failure to detect it or properly inform customers for nearly a year.
When you discover that your company’s systems have been hacked, do you (a) announce it, investigate, and hope to punish those responsible, or (b) pay the hackers $100,000 to keep quiet about it? The complaint for this class action claims that Uber chose to bribe the criminals who stole customer and driver data. The complaint claims that Uber failed to safeguard customers’ and drivers’ information and is therefore guilty of negligence and breach of implied contract.
Lime Crime is setting aside funds to settle a class action involving a data breach that exposed the PII of customers who used their payment cards on its site between October 4, 2014 and February 15, 2015. Lime Crime has already sent potentially affected customers an incident notice and offered one year of complimentary identity protection and fraud resolution services.
Whole Foods is known as a high-end grocery retailer, but at some of its 470 stores it also offers taprooms and restaurants. The complaint for this class action alleges that its taprooms and restaurants were the subjects of a data breach in September 2017. According to the complaint, Whole Foods knew about the breach but did not immediately inform the public, so that when plaintiff Patricia Banus made a purchase at a taproom in Rocky River, Ohio, her information was entered into a system that the company knew was already compromised.
Sonic, the largest chain of drive-ins in the US, has become the latest popular company to experience a data breach and expose the information of countless customers’ personally identifying information (PII). The complaint for this class action alleges that Sonic failed to take adequate measures to protect its data systems, failed to stop the breach from happening, failed to monitor and detect the breach on a timely basis, and failed to inform customers promptly. It claims that Sonic is guilty of negligence as well as breaches of Florida and New Jersey state laws.