Federal Appeals Court To Retailers: In A Breach, Pay For The Damn Replacement Card. And Buy Some Insurance, Too

Written by Evan Schuman
October 26th, 2011

A federal appellate panel, reviewing some of the data-breach lawsuits against Hannaford, has dealt a very narrow setback to retailers, ruling that consumers can be entitled to identify-theft insurance and replacement payment cards. The fact that such an extremely limited support for consumer rights can even be seen as a setback for retailers puts into context how incredibly retail-friendly federal courts have consistently been in various data-breach rulings.

There are two likely near-term impacts from the ruling. First, Hannaford itself will now have this case return to an active trial status, where it will likely reside for an absurdly short of time before it’s settled for the very small number of dollars that such an insurance policy and card replacements (for just a few customers) will cost. For retailers throughout the country, though, the impact will be more muted.

To begin with, the ruling narrowly looks at Maine law and will, therefore, not necessarily impact other regions. On the flip side, though, it is a federal appellate ruling and the logic the panel used will influence federal judges nationally. Given the relatively small dollars involved in these policies and card replacements, many chains are likely to just amend their breach reactions to pay for those items.

(Related story: During A Data Breach, Customers Will Stay—Unless You Alienate Them One At A Time)

What the panel said on October 20 was that the rulings from U.S. District Court Judge D. Brock Hornby involving the Hannaford breach—from December 2007 and impacting “4.2 million credit- and debit-card numbers, expiration dates and security codes”—were almost all correct. The panel deviated from just two decisions.

The rationale comes down to a practical definition of “reasonableness.” In this instance, the consumers were told that their specific account information had been accessed. In that situation—as opposed to one where, for example, the consumer merely heard of a major breach—the panel ruled that it’s legitimate for a consumer to expect to be issued new payment cards.

“The question then becomes whether plaintiffs’ mitigation steps were reasonable. This case involves a large-scale criminal operation conducted over three months and the deliberate taking of credit- and debit-card information by sophisticated thieves intending to use the information to their financial advantage,” the panel wrote. “Unlike the cases cited by Hannaford, this case does not involve inadvertently misplaced or lost data, which has not been accessed or misused by third parties. Here, there was actual misuse, and it was apparently global in reach. The thieves appeared to have expertise in accomplishing their theft and to be sophisticated in how to take advantage of the stolen numbers. The data was used to run up thousands of improper charges across the globe to the customers’ accounts. The card owners were not merely exposed to a hypothetical risk but to a real risk of misuse.”

The panel added: “Further, there is no suggestion there was any way to sort through to predict whose accounts would be used to ring up improper charges. By the time Hannaford acknowledged the breach, more than 1,800 fraudulent charges had been identified and the plaintiffs could reasonably expect that many more fraudulent charges would follow. Hannaford did not notify its customers of exactly what data, or whose data, was stolen.”


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.