Krottner v. Starbucks Corp.
628 F.3d 1139
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- Laptop stolen from Starbucks exposing names, addresses, and SSNs of ~97,000 employees.
- Starbucks notified affected employees on Nov 19, 2008 and offered free credit watch services for one year.
- Plaintiffs enrolled in the credit watch and alleged ongoing vigilance costs and anxiety about future identity theft.
- Plaintiffs filed two nearly identical class actions: negligence and breach of implied contract.
- District court dismissed the state-law claims, ruling standing existed but injury under Washington law was insufficient.
- Ninth Circuit held plaintiffs have standing based on credible threat of immediate, real harm from data theft, and affirmed dismissal of state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether increased risk of identity theft qualifies as injury-in-fact | Lalli alleges current anxiety; Krottner/Shamasa allege increased risk | Injury must be concrete and actual under Washington law | Yes; standing found due to credible, real and immediate threat of harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Pisciotta v. Old National Bancorp, 499 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2007) (injury-in-fact may be future harm when real and immediate)
- Cent. Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2002) (threat of future injury can satisfy standing if immediate and real)
- Scott v. Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist., 306 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2002) (future injury may satisfy standing if real and immediate)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (injury must be real and immediate, not conjectural)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004) (standing with respect to informational injury)