Alleruzzo v. SuperValu, Inc., No. 16-2378 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, shoppers who shopped at SuperValu stores that suffered data breaches, filed putative class actions alleging that hackers gained access to defendants' network because defendants failed to take adequate measures to protect customers' payment card information. The Eighth Circuit held that the complaint has not sufficiently alleged a substantial risk of identity theft, and plaintiffs' allegations of future injury did not support standing in this case. However, the complaint sufficiently alleged that one of the plaintiffs suffered an injury in fact, fairly traceable to defendants' security practices, and likely to be redressed by a favorable judgment. Because that plaintiff had Article III standing, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of his complaint. The court affirmed the dismissal as to the remaining plaintiffs and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Colloton, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Class Actions. In an action by consumers whose credit card information was stolen during security breaches of defendants' databases alleging defendants took inadequate steps to protect customers' credit and debit card information, with the exception of one plaintiff, the sixteen plaintiffs have not alleged that they have suffered fraudulent charges on their credit or debit cards or that fraudulent accounts have been opened in their names and, as a result, they have not alleged a substantial risk of future identity theft and do not have standing; one plaintiff has, however, alleged a present injury by alleging he suffered a fraudulent charge on his credit card; this constitutes identity theft and is an actual, concrete and particularized injury; by alleging an injury in fact, traceable to defendant's security practices and likely to be redressed by a favorable judgment, this plaintiff has Article III standing, and his case should be permitted to proceed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.