Anthem Data Breach Litigation: From A Private Lawyer. In a class action against Anthem Health Insurer Inc., Berger Montague filed on 16 February 2015, following the huge violation of Anthem’s records.
Computer hackers have breached Anthem’s registry and have stolen over 80 million Anthem customers and other peoples’ personal and financial details. The details stolen included addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, street, email, and work details like wages.
The lawsuit argued that Anthem did not defend its data infrastructure adequately. Further, the result that class members were suffering or at risk of identity fraud as a result of the intruders. The complaint sought cash damage, additional credit surveillance, and improved data security measures beyond Anthem’s original two-year offer.
All lawsuit into one
The Court merged into one case all pending class cases and named a select panel of law firms to lead the prosecutions. Berger Montague aided the leading businesses.
In 2018, the lawsuit settled for $115 million worth of benefits. That was the biggest privacy infringement solution in its history. Settlement benefits include: ( I ) the recovery of identity theft damages and other out-of-pocket costs; (ii) the provision of credit and identity theft protection coverage for a term of at least four years, compensated by Anthem.
History of the event
Anthem announced in February 2015 that a major data leak of 78,8 million insured people. Including social security numbers and health data, leaked personal identifying information (PII), and personal health information (PHI). Thus, constituting one of the greatest abuses of the data ever.
On 8 June 2015, they moved prospective class action cases to the Honorable Lucy H. Koh in the USA by the multi-district arbitration panel. Further, coordinated pre-trial hearings Circuit Court of the northern district of California. Another 110 cases eventually moved or correlated with the MDL.
The allegations that Anthem has not taken sufficient and fair steps to ensure the security of its data systems. Besides, did not take measures to discourage and avoid the breach. Lastly, did refuse to clarify to its customers the material truth that it does not have adequate information infrastructure.
Complainants successful
The complainant was successful in persuading Judge Koh, in arguing several rounds of motions to dismiss the case (on February 14, 2016, and May 27, 2016), to keep charges and hypotheses of harm at the innovation of privacy/data violation law, including Invoking the following arguments:
The right to claim restitution to the “benefit of a deal.” Ultimately, in the class motion, the defendants claimed that those awards should calculate the disparity between the aim market value of the health benefits as promised/represented (with data security). Further, with the real value of the statutory and consumer welfare statements (with insufficient data security).
Capable of seeking PII worth injury damages. During the class certification point, the plaintiffs asserted that the worth of PII should determine the price of that data on the market. In addition to the expense of defending class participants from fraudulent exploitation of that PII.
