"Healthcare providers wrestling with the legal fallout of cyber-attacks just received a fresh reminder from the District of Arizona: traditional tort and contract theories remain difficult to sustain after a breach, but consumer-fraud statutes can keep a case alive. In Johnson v. Yuma Regional Medical Center, fourteen patients sued the hospital after a ransomware incident exposed the data of roughly 700,000 individuals."
"In a 16-page opinion, Judge Susan M. Brnovich dismissed four of the five causes of action-negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty-while allowing a single claim under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act ("ACFA") to proceed."
In Johnson v. Yuma Regional Medical Center, fourteen patients sued the hospital after a ransomware incident exposed the data of roughly 700,000 individuals. The District of Arizona issued a 16-page opinion. Judge Susan M. Brnovich dismissed four of the five causes of action: negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The court allowed a single claim under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (ACFA) to proceed. The ruling illustrates that traditional tort and contract theories often fail post-breach while consumer-fraud statutes can sustain litigation.
Read at DataBreaches.Net
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]