By Thomas S. Markey / McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC

Privacy lawsuits, including consumer class actions and data breach cases, often live or die early in litigation when defendants seek dismissal based on plaintiffs’ lack of standing. In federal courts, where many privacy actions are filed, plaintiffs have standing only if they can establish a “personal stake” in the litigation.

In May 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, a decision that attempted to clarify its interpretation of the federal standing doctrine. In the year since Spokeo, however, a split has emerged among federal appellate courts regarding standing in consumer class-action lawsuits. Recent federal court decisions interpreting Spokeo, along with the well-publicized disclosures of data breaches at Yahoo! Inc., offer insight into how companies can strengthen their cybersecurity programs and minimize their exposure to data breach liability.
Continue Reading Avoiding Consumer Class Actions after Spokeo: Courts are still struggling with the issue of standing

By Pamela D. Hans & Christina Yousef / Anderson Kill

 

A lawsuit of any magnitude can be devastating for your business, whether it manifests its hardship financially or otherwise. The stress of making the right decision for your company’s future can seem insurmountable at times. And just like that, a light at the end of the tunnel: a settlement offer that is reasonable and good for your business. The only problem is that your insurance company will not consent.
Continue Reading Policyholders’ Hands Are Strengthened When Insurance Companies Refuse to Settle: Appellate decisions on a California case suggest the tables may be turning

By Joe Calve, Metropolitan Corporate Counsel

Picture this. It’s the cavernous main ballroom at the Aria Hotel & Casino, just off the strip in Las Vegas. It’s an early Wednesday morning in late March, the last day of the annual meeting of the Legal Marketing Association. There’s a buzz of anticipation. It’s GC day!Continue Reading Backstory: What Stays in Vegas …

By David Hechler / Metropolitan Corporate Counsel

The legal industry has gone global. You already knew that. The proof has been abundant for some time. But if anyone had lingering doubts, a report issued in late March should lay them to rest. It’s called The Growth of Collective Redress in the EU: A Survey of Developments in 10 Member States.Continue Reading Zut Alors! Class Actions Have Landed in the EU Deck. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce surveys 10 states

By Matthew Cohen, Michael Prounis and David White / AlixPartners LLP

There was a lot of talk this year at LegalTech about corporate legal departments bringing e-discovery in-house. The purported justifications for doing so are many, ranging from reduced costs and risks to increased control, efficiency and compliance. However, since the e-discovery lifecycle is very broad in scope, the real world benefits realized by bringing any particular components of that lifecycle can vary greatly from company to company. While most software vendors and resellers will have you believe that all your problems can be solved and your costs vastly reduced if you just implement their single magic solution, this is rarely the case. In order to realize actual returns, the decision to bring e-discovery in-house must be much more thoughtful and calculated, with a focus on actual needs, capacity and strategies. Deciding which aspects are suitable for internal management by any particular company requires a full understanding of the many different cost levers, the resources and expertise that each component requires and the pros and cons of doing it yourself versus outsourcing.Continue Reading Bringing E-Discovery In-House: It can make sense, but a legal department should carefully assess how much to do

By David Hechler

 When a group of regulators and in-house lawyers got together on April 3, the subject of cooperation came up frequently during their conversation. Nineteen months after the Yates Memorandum, the topic was still very much on their minds.
Continue Reading Conversing (and Cooperating) with the Regulators: A panel discussion veers from Yates to ‘macho litigators’

By Greg Cancilla / RVM Enterprises, Inc.

All the attention cybersecurity has garnered recently makes it easy to forget that computer forensics goes back long before the days of Dropbox, thumb drives, BYOD and the cloud. The contrast is not lost on RVM’s Greg Cancilla, who got his start during a time that now feels like a bygone era. He sat down with MCC to deliver what turned out to be (among other things) a history lesson. The interview has been edited for length and style.Continue Reading After the Breach: When cybersecurity fails, forensics specialists come in to investigate the theft

By Deborah B. Dunie / National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD)

A former CTO of a Fortune 1000 company with significant government experience, Deborah B. Dunie has an enviable resume for board service. She discussed her work with the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) advisory services, which recently unveiled a suite of tools and educational offerings to help close the “cyberliteracy” gap on corporate boards. Her remarks have been edited for length and style. Continue Reading Plugging the Cyberliteracy Gap: In confronting enterprise risk, directors should focus on risk tolerance and liability, not threats

By Matt Coatney / AccessData

The legal services industry is hurtling headlong into a revolution in the way that we carry out virtually every aspect of our jobs. The introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) – intelligence exhibited by machines that are trained to learn and solve problems – is not just an extension of prior technologies. AI holds the potential to dramatically change the field in a variety of ways, from reducing bias in investigations to challenging what evidence is considered admissible.Continue Reading Stop Worrying about the AI Revolution – It’s Here! Law Departments should focus on how it can help

By Rachel Hadrick / McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC

Distracted driving has become one of the leading causes of motor vehicle accidents and fatalities in the United States. In 2014 alone, Pennsylvania saw nearly 14,000 crashes involving a distracted driver, including 49 deaths. At least 46 states have made an effort to combat this growing problem in recent years by prohibiting texting by drivers. Many people are aware of these laws, and even the penalties they carry. Perhaps not so obvious, however, are the growing areas of liability flowing from the practice of texting while driving. Is liability limited to drivers? Can police search a driver’s phone after an accident? Can companies be liable if they facilitate, or even encourage, drivers to use their phones while driving? State courts and legislatures have addressed all of these issues and more.Continue Reading Texting and Driving – Evolving Theories of Liability: It isn’t just drivers who may be liable. Phone makers may be on the hook.