Federal Appellate Panel Sends TJX Case Back To Court, Move Likely To Cost TJX Millions More

Written by Evan Schuman
April 2nd, 2009

When a federal appellate panel ruled on Monday (March 30) that it was sending a small part of one of the civil lawsuits involving TJX’s death breach back to the district court, it was a very narrow decision. But the act of sending it back and allowing for discovery to start again is likely to force TJX to spend millions more, according to attorneys watching the case.

Perhaps even more importantly, the ruling is likely to slightly alter the risk-cost balance of retail security, putting just a little more pressure on chains to invest in their security operations.

In a typical business case, “the discovery process in litigation is extremely expensive, astronomically expensive,” said Terry Klein, an attorney with the Henshon Parker law firm in Boston. “If the decision changes anything, it changes how a business executive should think about what their exposure is when they are doing business in Massachusetts. They have a greater overall exposure today than they did yesterday morning. The risk calculation has changed because of the increased discovery process.”

It is true that discovery can be frightening for typical companies involved in class-action civil lawsuits, but for TJX, it can be positively terrifying. Throughout two trials, TJX showed itself to be far more worried about revealing thus-far-unreleased security details than monetary payments or almost anything else.

Making matters even worse for TJX is that the judge who had handled the trial—U.S. District Court Judge William Young—is the same the judge who is handling the trial yet again. And Young, near the end of the trial, became very fed up with TJX efforts to keep documents secret.

Indeed, the first trials were settled before much of the discovery process was completed. The prospect of opening up the document floodgates again with opposing counsel and a public-access-friendly judge is likely to be anything but comforting to TJX.

In all fairness, Young ruled in favor of TJX on the vast majority of its procedural and technical motions, but not necessarily on secrecy matters.

Although the case is merely going back to discovery, the cost of that continued discovery could cost TJX “conceivably millions of dollars in additional expenses,” Klein said. That, coupled with TJX’s intense fear of disclosure of more details about their security efforts, will likely push TJX to be more generous at the negotiating table with plaintiff attorneys, incentized to do almost anything rather than endure and risk more discovery. “This decision will encourage settlement,” Klein said.

The appellate panel ruled in favor of Young on most issues, but what is sending this case back is an argument about whether TJX had engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices because it accepted credit cards and that implied that they were a safe and secure retailer that would protect the credit card data.


One Comment | Read Federal Appellate Panel Sends TJX Case Back To Court, Move Likely To Cost TJX Millions More

  1. Rob Martell Says:

    So TJX had to get people in by giving them a discount if the spent MORE money with them in the last round. Now the lawyers (sorry, ‘attorneys’) are after more fees.



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.