1E9Ct5D

Target contends that Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries are not actual or imminent, andas such do not suffice to give them standing to sue. But Plaintiffs have allegedinjury. Indeed, paragraphs 1.a through 1.g and 8 through 94 of the Complaintare a recitation of many of the individual named Plaintiffs’ injuries, includingunlawful charges, restricted or blocked access to bank accounts, inability to payother bills, and late payment charges or new card fees. Target ignores much ofwhat is pled, instead contending that because some Plaintiffs do not allege thattheir expenses were unreimbursed or say whether they or their bank closed theiraccounts, Plaintiffs have insufficiently alleged injury. These arguments glossover the actual allegations made and set a too-high standard for Plaintiffs to meetat the motion-to-dismiss stage. Plaintiffs’ allegations plausibly allege that theysuffered injuries that are ‘fairly traceable’ to Target’s conduct. . . . This issufficient at this stage to plead standing. Should discovery fail to bear outPlaintiffs’ allegations, Target may move for summary judgment on that issue. 56B. Third Party Lawsuits on the Rise.Following a data breach, credit and debit card issuers are often faced with handlingdisputed and fraudulent charges and replacing customer credit and debit cards followinga breach. Who should bear these costs? The case law on the merchant’s liability to thebanks and credit unions that issue cards is sparse and until December 2014 seemed to56 See id. at 4 (internal citations omitted).March 6, 2015 29 © 3-6-2015 ALFA International Business Litigation P.G.