Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Aw Schnucks! Seventh Circuit Dismisses Data Breach Class Action by Financial Institution Plaintiffs Under Economic Loss Doctrine

May 16, 2018 by Carlton Fields

The Seventh Circuit recently upheld the dismissal of a novel putative class action filed by financial institutions against grocer Schnuck Markets (“Schnucks”) based on the economic loss doctrine. Schnucks suffered a data breach that exposed nearly 2.5 million credit and debit cards over four months until the intrusion was discovered. Instead of being filed by the usual data breach class action featuring a putative class of customers, this case was filed by financial institutions seeking to recover financial losses they incurred — employee time to investigate, indemnification payments, lost interest and transaction fees — from indemnifying breach victims’ losses above and beyond the contractual remedies available under their credit card network agreements.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a plausible claim under all asserted legal theories based on its predictions of how the applicable states —Illinois and Missouri — would treat the issues. Initially, the court envisioned that both states would generally use the “contracting parties paradigm” of the economic loss doctrine and noted that the banks had already entered into voluntary and complex liability sharing agreements when entering into the credit card payment network.

The court conducted a claim-by-claim analysis under each state’s law. On plaintiffs general negligence claims, the court found neither states’ exceptions to the economic loss doctrine applied. Furthermore, the court predicted that Illinois would follow prior state appellate authority refusing to recognize a duty to safeguard information and that Missouri courts would likely take notice that the state data privacy statute does not provide for the reimbursement liability sought here like some states’ laws do. Likewise, the court rejected the premise of a negligence per se claim because plaintiffs failed to show a statute had been violated — the threshold element for such a claim in both states.

The court quickly dispatched plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment, implied contract, and third-party beneficiary claims under basic contract law principles. Both states’ laws reject unjust enrichment and implied contract claims where contracts govern the parties’ relationship and refuse to recognize third-party beneficiary claims absent an identified beneficiary or clearly documented third-party benefit.

Finally, the court assessed plaintiffs’ statutory claims and held that plaintiffs’ general allegation that deliberately concealing the data breach manipulated prices and sales volume was not cognizable as an unfair practice because Illinois courts have rejected the “market theory” of causation and plaintiffs did not plead any specific misrepresentations. While a violation of the state’s personal information protection law could be such a predicate act, plaintiffs failed to offer any legal argument on this point and the court declined to do so on the plaintiffs’ behalf.

Cmty. Bank of Trenton v. Schnuck Mkts., Inc., No. 17-2146 (7th Cir. Apr. 11, 2018).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Supreme Court to Determine Whether An Arbitration Clause Must Explicitly Authorize Class-wide Arbitration

Next Article »

Supreme Court Upholds Use of Class Action Waivers in Employment Arbitration Agreements
Avatar

About Carlton Fields

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.