TJX’s Projected Breach Costs Increase To $216 Million

Written by Evan Schuman
November 13th, 2007

In a footnote in its Tuesday earnings announcement, TJX increased its estimate of pre-tax charges for the world’s worst credit card data breach to $216 million. Back in August, it had projected only a $168 million pre-tax hit.

The data breach consisting of extensive cyber thief activity within TJX’s network from 2003 through June 2004 and then again from mid-May 2006 through mid-December 2006, TJX said. Court filings have estimated that the data from some 96 million credit cards was accessed during the incidents.

"This reserve reflects (TJX’s) estimation of probable losses in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles based on information available to (TJX) and includes an estimation of total potential cash liabilities, from pending litigation, proceedings, investigations and other claims, as well as legal and other costs and expenses, arising from the computer intrusion," TJX said in its SEC filing.

In the second quarter (which ended July 28, 2007), TJX "recorded an after-tax reserve of $107 million for its estimated exposure to potential losses" on top of an earlier $23 million hit, TJX said.


2 Comments | Read TJX’s Projected Breach Costs Increase To $216 Million

  1. Will S. Says:

    TJX keeps taking the hits (albeit deserved!) and we still see major retailers suffering from data breaches (Gap Inc. most recently,) what will it take to open the eye’s of big business in order to protect our data? I find it interesting that at a time when the Data Loss Protection market seems to be at its height, that more companies are still not protecting their customers and their reputation by implementing a little software, or maybe even encrypt a laptop or two.

  2. Anonymous Says:

    Oh, I see. Visa estimates resulting fraud losses of around $75 MM. (And there’s Visa’s .8 MM in penalties levied against TJX.) and there’s MC’s and other’s fraud losses and levied penalties. If TJX is liable for those losses, and we add court punitive damages to those losses, the $216 MM is likely reached, or surpassed. I’m predicting that there are untrue statements TJX made to Visa and co. to avoid getting cut off from the card networks that will render it liable.

    P.S. Evan: Great articles on TJX. Thanks!


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.