Target Settles Consumer Data Breach Class Action for $10 Million

Mar 25, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

Before consumers start planning their next shopping spree with their settlement funds, they should be warned: it will not be as easy as it may seem to get a payout. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. Thus, claims would be based on whether plaintiffs can show they have suffered at least one of the following:

  • unauthorized, unreimbursed credit card charges
  • time spent dealing with unauthorized charges
  • costs to hire someone to help correct credit reports
  • higher interest rates
  • loss of access to funds
  • fees paid on accounts or
  • credit-related costs, such as credit monitoring or purchasing credit reports.

The bulk of provable damages would fall under the first category. However, many cardholders have been reimbursed by their card issuers for the fraudulent charges and therefore will be unable to recover twice. These card issuers have filed their own, separate class action lawsuit against Target, and the company’s motion to dismiss that suit was also denied. Many speculate that the potential strength of the claims by the financial institutions in that suit, who bore the bulk of the damages from reimbursing their cardholders for the fraudulent charges, was a driving force in Target’s settlement of the consumer claims. Target’s swift settlement was also likely fueled by obtaining a relatively low settlement amount. The cost of a large data breach settlement not involving medical records is typically around $1 per class member. Target’s $10 million payout to an estimated 110 million class members is well below that. In addition, an early settlement cuts Target’s hemorrhaging ongoing litigation and data breach response costs; this settlement amount does not hold a candle to the $252 million that the company has spent thus far in responding to the breach.

Class members have until July 31 to opt out of the class, and the final settlement approval hearing is set for November 5, 2015. It remains to be seen whether Target will, or can, settle its other suit with the financial institutions.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.