Maine Supreme Court Backs Retailers On Data Breach Liability

Written by Evan Schuman
September 23rd, 2010

A unanimous ruling from the Maine Supreme Court Tuesday (Sept. 21) in the Hannaford data breach case lifted a year-long threat hanging over retailers. The court ruled that consumers’ time and effort spent to clean up a cyberthief’s damage need not be paid for by a breached retailer. But that protection won’t help much as retailers turn more to debit payments.

The case involves the final litigation surrounding the 2007 data breach against the 165-store Hannaford grocery chain. That breach exposed some 4.2 million payment cards to the cyberthief gang run by Albert Gonzalez.

The federal judge overseeing the civil lawsuits against Hannaford—U.S. District Court Judge D. Brock Hornby—initially ruled the same as have other federal judges handling other retail data breach cases, including the TJX litigation.

Hornby ruled that consumers suing Hannaford had to prove actual financial damages that were material before he would allow that portion of the case to continue. Behind much of this issue is the card brands’ zero-liability programs, which inadvertently make it almost impossible to successfully sue a retailer for a breach. By crediting the losses from the frauds, zero-liability eliminates any material financial loss. Without such a loss, consumers can’t proceed successfully in this type of civil lawsuit.

Attorneys for those consumers argued to Hornby that the losses in time and effort were significant and that those efforts, coupled with what they contended was Hannaford’s negligence in protecting payment card data, made a civil ruling against the chain appropriate.

Hornby turned the consumers down, however, ruling that the losses were “too remote, not reasonably foreseeable and/or speculative” and that there was “no way to value and recompense time and effort.” He added that such non-financial losses were merely “the ordinary frustrations and inconveniences that everyone confronts in daily life with or without fraud or negligence.”

After that ruling, consumer attorneys asked him to reconsider. Hornby set aside his decision and then asked the Maine Supreme Court to decide the matter. The court did so on Tuesday, and unanimously sided with Hannaford.

The exact question the Maine Supreme ruled on was: “In the absence of physical harm or economic loss or identity theft, do time and effort alone, spent in a reasonable effort to avoid or remediate reasonably foreseeable harm, constitute a cognizable injury for which damages may be recovered under Maine law of negligence and/or implied contract?”


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.