Litigation

Subscribe to Litigation via RSS

The rapid development of AI is introducing new opportunities and challenges to dispute resolution. AI is already impacting the document review and production process, legal research, and the drafting of court submissions. It is expected that the use of AI will expand into other areas, including predicting case outcomes and adjudicating disputes. However, the use of AI in litigation also bears risk, as highlighted by a recent First-tier Tribunal (Tax) decision, where an appellant had sought to rely on precedent authorities that, in fact, were fabricated by AI (a known risk with AI using large language models, referred to as hallucination).[1] While, in this particular case, no further consequences seemed to follow (in light of the fact that the appellant, a litigant in person, “had been unaware that the AI cases were not genuine and that she did not know how to check their validity”[2]), the Tribunal did highlight that “providing authorities which are not genuine and asking a court or tribunal to rely on them is a serious and important issue”,[3] suggesting that litigants may incur certain risks by relying on authorities suggested by AI, unless these are independently verified. On 12 December 2023, a group of senior judges, including the Master of the Rolls and the Lady Chief Justice, issued guidance on AI for judicial office holders, which, amongst other things, discourages the use of AI for legal research and analysis and highlights the risk of AI being relied on by litigants to provide legal advice and/or to produce evidence.[4]Continue Reading Nexus of AI, AI Regulation and Dispute Resolution

After nearly two years of detailed negotiations, on March 25, 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced an “agreement in principle” on a new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework (the “Framework”) to re-establish an important legal mechanism to effectuate cross-border transfers of personal data from the EU to the U.S. The Framework is hoped to address concerns raised by the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) in Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland and Maximillian Schrems (2020) (“Schrems II”).
Continue Reading Schrems III? The European Commission and U.S. Government Announce New Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework

Cybersecurity and data privacy continue to be among the most significant legal risks that businesses face today.

Last year brought a series of high-profile cyberattacks on major companies and U.S. infrastructure targets, continuing the trend seen in recent years. Regulators also brought a number of cybersecurity enforcement actions and announced new rules, guidance, and initiatives on ransomware and other cyber-related issues. In addition, after many years of debate, Congress made some progress in crafting legislation that would require certain companies to report significant cyberattacks and ransomware payments to the U.S. federal government. Companies should expect the demands of cybersecurity risk management and oversight to intensify as we enter 2022.
Continue Reading 2021 Cybersecurity and Privacy Developments in the United States

On January 19, 2022, District Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action filed against men’s clothing store Bonobos, Inc., following an August 2020 data breach.  Judge Furman determined that a Bonobos customer whose personal information was stolen in the breach failed to demonstrate a sufficiently substantial risk of harm to establish standing to sue.

The decision in Cooper v. Bonobos reflects the increased uncertainty regarding the viability of suits for damages based solely on future risk of identity theft or fraud, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez.
Continue Reading Data Breach Class Action Against Bonobos Dismissed For Lack of Standing

A 2021 survey of chief legal officers demonstrated that cybersecurity has overtaken compliance as the most significant legal risk that businesses face today. This should not come as a surprise as 2021 brought a series of high-profile cyberattacks on major companies and U.S. infrastructure targets.
Continue Reading Cybersecurity: Data Breaches, Ransomware Attacks and Increased Regulatory Focus

On 10 November 2021, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom handed down its much-awaited judgment in the case of Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50.  The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the claim, which is a representative action alleging breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA 1998”), could not proceed.

The Supreme…

Last week, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of Article III standing a proposed class action against a health services provider that mistakenly disclosed personally identifiable information (“PII”).  In its opinion, the Second Circuit held that plaintiffs may establish Article III standing based on an increased risk of identity theft or fraud following an unauthorized disclosure of their data, but that the standard was not met based on the facts presented.  The decision, which is the first time the Second Circuit has explicitly adopted this standard, has potentially important implications going forward for data breach cases.
Continue Reading Second Circuit Articulates Injury Standard in Data Breach Suits

Last month, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss in In re Fed Ex Corp. Securities Litigation, a putative class action securities fraud case filed against FedEx following numerous disclosures in 2017 and 2018 regarding the impact of a Russian cyberattack on its recently acquired subsidiary, TNT Express Services B.V (“TNT”).[1]  The court held that the complaint failed to adequately plead that FedEx had made any material misrepresentations or had the requisite scienter.  FedEx’s successful defense against the lawsuit highlights the importance for companies to consider their disclosure obligations following a cyber-incident and carefully tailor their disclosures to account for their risks and accurately reflect the consequences of the incident.
Continue Reading District Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Claim Against FedEx Concerning Disclosures About NotPetya Cyberattack

Last month, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed claims brought in a putative class action seeking damages for disclosure of credit card information in a data breach resulting from a cyberattack.  In I Tan Tsao v. Captiva MVP Restaurant Partners, LLC., the court held that the named plaintiff could not establish standing to sue based on allegations that the data breach created a “continuing increased risk of harm from identity theft and identity fraud” or that the plaintiff took affirmative steps to mitigate such potential harm. [1]  This decision follows the reasoning set forth in the court’s recent en banc decision in Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc, in which similar allegations were rejected as insufficient to support standing in a case seeking statutory damages from technical violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, and adds to the circuit split on the issue.[2]
Continue Reading 11th Circuit Rejects Standing Based on Heightened Risk of Identity Theft in Data Breach Suit

In a decision with potentially far-reaching implications, Alasaad v. Mayorkas, Nos. 20-1077, 20-1081, 2021 WL 521570 (1st Cir. Feb. 9, 2021), the First Circuit recently rejected First and Fourth Amendment challenges to the U.S. government agency policies governing border searches of electronic devices. These policies permit so-called “basic” manual searches of electronic devices without any articulable suspicion, requiring reasonable suspicion only when officers perform “advanced” searches that use external equipment to review, copy, or analyze a device.  The First Circuit held that even these “advanced” searches require neither probable cause nor a warrant, and it split with the Ninth Circuit in holding that searches need not be limited to searches for contraband, but may also be used to search for evidence of contraband or evidence of other illegal activity. This decision implicates several takeaways for company executives entering and leaving the United States, particularly if they or their employers are under active investigation.  In-house counsel in particular should consider the implications of the decision given obligations of lawyers to protect the confidentiality of attorney-client privileged information.
Continue Reading First Circuit Upholds Border Searches of Electronic Devices Without Probable Cause