1
00:00:03,520 --> 00:00:07,040
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,120 --> 00:00:09,680
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:09,720 --> 00:00:12,200
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:12,240 --> 00:00:16,160
Speaker 1: episodes at the Bloomberg Law Podcast, on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

5
00:00:16,280 --> 00:00:20,000
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The tech giants

6
00:00:20,000 --> 00:00:23,600
Speaker 1: have faced dozens of consumer class claims in California federal

7
00:00:23,640 --> 00:00:26,880
Speaker 1: courts in recent years after a series of high profile

8
00:00:26,960 --> 00:00:30,440
Speaker 1: privacy and security breaches. Joining me is Eric Goldman, a

9
00:00:30,480 --> 00:00:33,879
Speaker 1: professor at Santa Clara University Law School and co director

10
00:00:33,880 --> 00:00:37,400
Speaker 1: of the High Tech Law Institute, have federal courts in

11
00:00:37,520 --> 00:00:42,040
Speaker 1: California lowered the bar for consumers to bring privacy cases

12
00:00:42,080 --> 00:00:45,720
Speaker 1: against the tech giants. The California courts are seeing a

13
00:00:45,760 --> 00:00:49,120
Speaker 1: lot of the privacy relegation nationwide, so they're dealing with

14
00:00:49,159 --> 00:00:52,519
Speaker 1: a higher volume than any other courts, and many of

15
00:00:52,560 --> 00:00:57,520
Speaker 1: those courts are resolving the first threshold question cann this

16
00:00:57,640 --> 00:01:00,440
Speaker 1: case even be heard in court, and many of the

17
00:01:00,440 --> 00:01:03,880
Speaker 1: California carts are being sympathetic to the plaintiffs in those

18
00:01:03,960 --> 00:01:07,600
Speaker 1: rulings and willing to entertain lawsuits that might not succeed elsewhere.

19
00:01:08,040 --> 00:01:10,640
Speaker 1: Is it because the Ninth Circuit is known as a

20
00:01:10,720 --> 00:01:15,839
Speaker 1: liberal circuit, and their decisions are following the case law there,

21
00:01:16,000 --> 00:01:18,680
Speaker 1: or is it for another reason. It's a little hard

22
00:01:18,720 --> 00:01:22,840
Speaker 1: to pinpoint why the California courts might be more sympathetic. Certainly,

23
00:01:23,000 --> 00:01:27,160
Speaker 1: California has a reputation is being sympathetic to planet arguments

24
00:01:27,160 --> 00:01:32,240
Speaker 1: and open to lawsuits generally. But this particular question on

25
00:01:32,360 --> 00:01:36,600
Speaker 1: privacy lawsuits about whether the litigants even have the right

26
00:01:36,640 --> 00:01:39,319
Speaker 1: to be in court really derives from a two thousand

27
00:01:39,360 --> 00:01:42,000
Speaker 1: and sixteen Supreme Court case that the courts across the

28
00:01:42,000 --> 00:01:45,000
Speaker 1: country have just read differently. And so it's not clear

29
00:01:45,040 --> 00:01:47,840
Speaker 1: if the California courts are more biased in one direction

30
00:01:47,840 --> 00:01:50,680
Speaker 1: another or they're just reading the cases differently than other

31
00:01:50,720 --> 00:01:53,480
Speaker 1: courts are. Tell us about that last Supreme Court case

32
00:01:53,560 --> 00:01:58,320
Speaker 1: in Yeah, it was kids called Spokeyo versus Romans, and

33
00:01:58,520 --> 00:02:02,880
Speaker 1: the Smokeyo case addressed a very threshold question. In order

34
00:02:02,920 --> 00:02:05,800
Speaker 1: to get into federal court, planists have to show that

35
00:02:05,880 --> 00:02:09,720
Speaker 1: they suffered some cognizable injury. They can't just go into

36
00:02:09,720 --> 00:02:12,120
Speaker 1: court and say I'm upset. They have to show that

37
00:02:12,560 --> 00:02:16,600
Speaker 1: they suffered some problem that the law recognizes. Now, that's

38
00:02:16,600 --> 00:02:19,079
Speaker 1: not proof that they suffered problems, but they can't even

39
00:02:19,160 --> 00:02:22,400
Speaker 1: articulate how they suffered a guisle injury. The courts are

40
00:02:22,440 --> 00:02:25,600
Speaker 1: supposed to dismiss the case, basically saying, that's not the

41
00:02:25,639 --> 00:02:27,360
Speaker 1: kind of case that we're allowed to hear in the

42
00:02:27,400 --> 00:02:31,000
Speaker 1: first instance. And in the sixteen Supreme Court case, the

43
00:02:31,080 --> 00:02:35,200
Speaker 1: court gave us some guidance about when the planets suffer

44
00:02:35,320 --> 00:02:38,320
Speaker 1: cognizable injury. But the guidance the court gave us was

45
00:02:38,480 --> 00:02:41,560
Speaker 1: somewhat confusing, and that's one of the reasons why courts

46
00:02:41,680 --> 00:02:44,359
Speaker 1: across the country have been reading it differently. Have there

47
00:02:44,400 --> 00:02:47,360
Speaker 1: been appeals to the Supreme Court on these standing issues

48
00:02:47,400 --> 00:02:50,799
Speaker 1: in privacy cases since then and the Court just hasn't

49
00:02:50,919 --> 00:02:53,239
Speaker 1: taken it up. Actually, I'm not sure if there have

50
00:02:53,320 --> 00:02:56,120
Speaker 1: been any appeals of that issue to the Supreme Court.

51
00:02:56,360 --> 00:02:58,720
Speaker 1: But even if they're worth the Supreme Court takes a

52
00:02:58,800 --> 00:03:01,240
Speaker 1: very small fraction of the their appealed to it, well

53
00:03:01,320 --> 00:03:04,480
Speaker 1: less than one percent. So it wouldn't be unusual for

54
00:03:04,520 --> 00:03:06,560
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court not to take another case in this

55
00:03:06,639 --> 00:03:09,200
Speaker 1: area for a while, but to let the issue play

56
00:03:09,240 --> 00:03:12,600
Speaker 1: out in the lower courts and only after the problems

57
00:03:12,639 --> 00:03:15,440
Speaker 1: have emerged. Clearly, would the Supreme Court come back in

58
00:03:15,480 --> 00:03:18,600
Speaker 1: and take another case. Is there any way to account

59
00:03:18,639 --> 00:03:21,359
Speaker 1: for the fact that the Ninth, the seventh, and the

60
00:03:21,440 --> 00:03:24,440
Speaker 1: d C circuits seem to be more proplaintive in this

61
00:03:24,639 --> 00:03:28,480
Speaker 1: area and the fourth and the second are less proplaintive.

62
00:03:28,919 --> 00:03:30,160
Speaker 1: Is it just the luck of the draw of the

63
00:03:30,160 --> 00:03:33,320
Speaker 1: panel that they get or is there a proplaintive bias

64
00:03:33,360 --> 00:03:37,120
Speaker 1: in those particular circuits. I don't think of the circuits

65
00:03:37,160 --> 00:03:40,320
Speaker 1: that you mentioned as being particularly proplaintive, especially the Seventh Circuit,

66
00:03:40,360 --> 00:03:44,840
Speaker 1: which historically has actually been viewed as a pro business circuit,

67
00:03:45,320 --> 00:03:47,680
Speaker 1: so it would be actually unusual for them to be

68
00:03:47,760 --> 00:03:50,800
Speaker 1: considered a pro plaintive circuit. And I don't think it's

69
00:03:50,960 --> 00:03:55,320
Speaker 1: the differences between panels on the appellate courts as much

70
00:03:55,360 --> 00:04:00,160
Speaker 1: as just the Supreme Court case has so many ambiguous

71
00:04:00,200 --> 00:04:04,200
Speaker 1: and possibly contradictory statements that of course across the country

72
00:04:04,240 --> 00:04:06,840
Speaker 1: have really struggled to figure out what it means. So

73
00:04:07,000 --> 00:04:10,280
Speaker 1: that's why once one of the circuits starts to answer

74
00:04:10,400 --> 00:04:13,360
Speaker 1: for the circuit, you might start to see these different

75
00:04:13,400 --> 00:04:16,520
Speaker 1: precedents emerge on the circuits that look pro plaintive. But

76
00:04:16,560 --> 00:04:19,200
Speaker 1: it's just because the first panel that heard that particular

77
00:04:19,640 --> 00:04:23,320
Speaker 1: issue may have read the opinion in a particular way

78
00:04:23,400 --> 00:04:27,120
Speaker 1: that led towards a more proper plaintive outcome. Is there

79
00:04:27,160 --> 00:04:30,760
Speaker 1: a case that you think particularly well explains the kind

80
00:04:30,800 --> 00:04:35,159
Speaker 1: of standing issues that we're talking about here. The case

81
00:04:35,240 --> 00:04:37,520
Speaker 1: that stands out of my mind, it's the Zappo's case.

82
00:04:37,920 --> 00:04:41,960
Speaker 1: It involves a data breach by the retailers Zappos, and

83
00:04:42,400 --> 00:04:47,320
Speaker 1: many millions of records were released, and after several years

84
00:04:47,320 --> 00:04:49,760
Speaker 1: in the case, so the case proceeded on in court

85
00:04:49,800 --> 00:04:54,680
Speaker 1: for years, the defendant moved to dismiss the case, saying

86
00:04:55,360 --> 00:04:58,440
Speaker 1: there wasn't a standing because of the fact that nobody

87
00:04:58,480 --> 00:05:02,600
Speaker 1: had ever shown that their data actually been misused. So

88
00:05:02,680 --> 00:05:05,360
Speaker 1: there were millions of consumers who are affected by the breach,

89
00:05:05,800 --> 00:05:08,960
Speaker 1: and after all the work on all the LITA gives

90
00:05:09,160 --> 00:05:12,240
Speaker 1: to try and find evidence of a problem, there was

91
00:05:12,279 --> 00:05:15,120
Speaker 1: no evidence that anyone ever suffered a breach. And the

92
00:05:15,120 --> 00:05:17,919
Speaker 1: court still said, even though after three plus years of

93
00:05:18,160 --> 00:05:21,600
Speaker 1: developments in the area where the data has been available

94
00:05:21,640 --> 00:05:24,200
Speaker 1: and could be misused, we still think that the case

95
00:05:24,200 --> 00:05:27,120
Speaker 1: should proceed because of the fact that consumer data was

96
00:05:27,160 --> 00:05:30,240
Speaker 1: released even though there's no evidence anyone's ever used it,

97
00:05:30,440 --> 00:05:33,360
Speaker 1: and that should be pretty good evidence possibly no one

98
00:05:33,400 --> 00:05:36,560
Speaker 1: ever suffered any harm from the case. Well, privacy suits

99
00:05:36,680 --> 00:05:40,320
Speaker 1: get more aggressive until the Supreme Court decides to take

100
00:05:40,320 --> 00:05:43,039
Speaker 1: a case and perhaps rain them in. There's no doubt

101
00:05:43,040 --> 00:05:47,040
Speaker 1: that privacy litigation of the growth industry and the standing

102
00:05:47,160 --> 00:05:51,000
Speaker 1: issue has contributed to the growth because of the fact

103
00:05:51,000 --> 00:05:52,920
Speaker 1: that planefts have been able to find ways to get

104
00:05:52,920 --> 00:05:56,200
Speaker 1: into court even if they can't show the kinds of

105
00:05:56,240 --> 00:05:59,680
Speaker 1: harms we would expect planeffs to show. That's been emboldening

106
00:05:59,720 --> 00:06:02,080
Speaker 1: plane us to bring more cases. I would also point

107
00:06:02,120 --> 00:06:05,680
Speaker 1: out in California there's a new data breach law that's

108
00:06:05,720 --> 00:06:09,640
Speaker 1: gonna be going into effect on January one that specifies

109
00:06:09,680 --> 00:06:14,159
Speaker 1: certain types of harms that can be recognized automatically, and

110
00:06:14,360 --> 00:06:17,440
Speaker 1: that's going to encourage the planeffs to bring lawsuits also

111
00:06:17,480 --> 00:06:20,080
Speaker 1: in California State corn and try and take advantage of

112
00:06:20,080 --> 00:06:24,320
Speaker 1: the laws statutory damages which guarantee certain payoffs and minimum

113
00:06:24,320 --> 00:06:27,560
Speaker 1: payoffs even if the planets can otherwise show harm. So

114
00:06:27,920 --> 00:06:30,360
Speaker 1: data breach relegation is actually about to get a TERMO

115
00:06:30,440 --> 00:06:33,560
Speaker 1: charge boost from the California law. What we've seen now

116
00:06:33,600 --> 00:06:35,479
Speaker 1: I think is going to be just a small fraction

117
00:06:35,600 --> 00:06:37,760
Speaker 1: of the amount of litigation that's going to be spurred

118
00:06:38,000 --> 00:06:41,560
Speaker 1: by the California law. Thanks Eric, that's Eric Goldman of

119
00:06:41,600 --> 00:06:46,160
Speaker 1: Santa Clara University Law School. Thanks for listening to the

120
00:06:46,200 --> 00:06:49,560
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the

121
00:06:49,600 --> 00:06:53,480
Speaker 1: show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com

122
00:06:53,560 --> 00:07:00,600
Speaker 1: slash podcast. I'm June Brasso. This is Bloomberg to end.

123
00:07:00,680 --> 00:07:02,000
Speaker 1: In the end up of the fe