×
60 464
Fashion Jobs
OLD NAVY
General Manager - Tomball Crossings
Permanent · Tomball
OLD NAVY
Assistant General Manager - Springfield Commons
Permanent · Springfield
OLD NAVY
Asset Protection Manager
Permanent · Epping
OLD NAVY
Assistant General Manager, Merchandising - Sycamore Commons
Permanent · Matthews
OLD NAVY
Assistant General Manager - Hillside Village
Permanent · Cedar Hill
OLD NAVY
General Manager - Fayette
Permanent · Lexington
NIKE
Finance Director, Global Operations & Logistics (Goal)
Permanent · Beaverton
NIKE
Manager, Global Finance And Strategic Investment
Permanent · Beaverton
NIKE
Omnichannel Services Marketing Manager
Permanent · Beaverton
NEIMAN MARCUS
Loss Prevention Associate - Denver
Permanent · Denver
NEIMAN MARCUS
Loss Prevention Associate- Austin
Permanent · Austin
ULTA BEAUTY, INC.
Retail Operations Manager
Permanent · Wichita
ULTA BEAUTY, INC.
Retail Operations Manager
Permanent · New York
ULTA BEAUTY, INC.
co - Sales Manager
Permanent · Wellington
ULTA BEAUTY, INC.
co - Sales Manager
Permanent · Littleton
ULTA BEAUTY, INC.
Retail Operations Manager
Permanent · Rapid City
ULTA BEAUTY, INC.
co - Sales Manager
Permanent · Denver
ULTA BEAUTY, INC.
Retail Sales Manager
Permanent · Chattanooga
BLOOMINGDALE'S
Business Manager - Home/yw
Permanent · Costa Mesa
BLOOMINGDALE'S
Asset Protection Visual Security Officer, Orlando - Flex
Permanent · Orlando
BLOOMINGDALE'S
Business Manager - Men's
Permanent · Costa Mesa
BLOOMINGDALE'S
Outlet Keyholder Selling, Liberty Place - Full Time
Permanent · Philadelphia
By
Reuters
Published
Mar 25, 2019
Reading time
2 minutes
Share
Download
Download the article
Print
Click here to print
Text size
aA+ aA-

U.S. top court rejects shoe retailer Zappos appeal in data breach case

By
Reuters
Published
Mar 25, 2019

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a bid by online shoe retailer Zappos to throw out a class-action lawsuit by customers who said their personal information was stolen by hackers in 2012.


Photo: Zappos/ Instagram



The justices denied an appeal by Zappos, a subsidiary of Amazon.com Inc, of a ruling by a California-based federal appeals court that revived the lawsuit, dealing a setback to the company and business groups seeking to limit their liability in data breaches, an increasingly common problem in the internet age.

The case hinges on whether customers whose data has been stolen can sue the company that was hacked even if that information was not used for nefarious purposes such as identity theft or fraudulent charges.

Zappos said customers whose data is not used in those ways are not harmed to such a degree that can sustain a federal lawsuit. But the customers said that after a breach their information can be misused at any time, even years later, and long before the fraud is discovered.

Hackers broke into Zappos’ computer systems in January 2012, gaining access to servers containing identifying information for 24 million customers, including names, contact details and partial credit card numbers.

People who purchased shoes and other items from Zappos filed several proposed class-action lawsuits, saying Zappos used unprotected servers and did not properly encrypt the data. Zappos says it acted swiftly so that passwords could be reset, preventing serious harm.

A federal judge in Nevada said some victims who claimed financial loss had legal standing to sue but the rest who could not claim such concrete injuries did not.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ruling last year, reviving the other claims, saying the “hackers accessed information that could be used to help commit identity fraud or identity theft.”

In addition to an actual injury, the court said customers can sue if they can show there is a substantial risk of harm and that it is impending.

Zappos called that standard “manifestly insufficient” and urged the Supreme Court to reverse the 9th Circuit.

Backed by business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Zappos said in a court filing that data breaches are a fact of life in an increasingly digital world and the court should shield retailers, employers and service providers from “sprawling and costly litigation.”

© Thomson Reuters 2021 All rights reserved.