On May 5, 2020, the Seventh Circuit held in Bryant v. Compass Group USA, Inc. that a plaintiff who asserted a violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act’s (“BIPA’s”) notice and consent requirements had Article III standing to pursue her claim in federal court. With respect to BIPA’s retention schedule posting requirement, however, the Seventh Circuit found that allegations of a statutory violation did not, on their own, suffice to confer Article III standing. This decision will make it easier for defendants to keep BIPA claims in federal court, and its standing analysis has significant implications for BIPA cases, as well as other privacy and data security cases more broadly.
Michelle Visser has extensive experience in defending companies that face the regulatory investigations, class action litigation, and payment card brand claims that frequently follow the announcement of cybersecurity incidents. In addition to litigating privacy and cybersecurity matters, Michelle has navigated numerous companies through their cybersecurity response, including by overseeing technical forensic investigations, advising on notification obligations and coordinating communication strategies.
When faced with an incident, companies call Michelle for crisis response with an eye toward potential litigation. Clients also look to Michelle for privacy and cybersecurity advice before a crisis is at hand. Michelle regularly takes the lessons learned from litigating privacy and cybersecurity matters to provide clients with proactive advice on how to structure their privacy and cybersecurity programs and incident response plans in ways designed to reduce legal exposure. Michelle is ranked as Up and Coming by Chambers USA Privacy and Data Security in 2020 for being equally capable in both compliance and enforcement elements of privacy regulation.
For her role in representing companies that have faced some of the most high-profile cybersecurity incidents and litigation to date, Michelle was named an Up and Coming lawyer by Chambers USA in 2020, a Next Generation Lawyer by The Legal 500 in 2019, one of the “40 Under 40” in 2018 by the Global Data Review and a “Rising Star” by Law360 in 2015. She was also recognized as one of the “Women Leaders in Technology Law” by The San Francisco Recorder in 2015. Clients endorse Michelle, telling Chambers, they are “very impressed with her; I'm very happy to have her to rely on due to her responsiveness and pragmatic advice.”
Michelle is also regularly turned to for defense against other types of class actions and complex litigation with experience in defending companies against securities, antitrust, and other commercial claims.
Posts by: Michelle Visser
The possibility of a cybersecurity incident—and ensuing litigation—is a fact of life for almost every business. Even companies that do not process or handle consumer information collect personal information about their employees that can be targeted by hackers or phishing scams or even inadvertently disclosed, exposing the company to potential liability.
While eliminating cybersecurity litigation risk entirely likely is not feasible, recent cases do highlight some steps that companies seeking to reduce potential exposure to cybersecurity litigation can take: READ MORE
Privacy & Cybersecurity Litigation partner Michelle Visser, counsel David Cohen and associate Nicole Gelsomini authored this blog post for the Washington Legal Foundation on the unsettled state of the law on constitutional standing in privacy and cybersecurity cases in the wake of two recent Supreme Court developments. Constitutional standing challenges are, and will continue to be, an important potential tool for privacy and cybersecurity defendants seeking to dismiss certain class actions brought in federal court. To establish standing, a private plaintiff must show, among other things, that he or she faces an actual or imminent concrete injury from the defendant’s conduct. As explained in the Washington Legal Foundation post, however, the Supreme Court recently passed on two chances to clarify the test that will govern this standing inquiry, leaving defendants to wade through conflicting and ambiguous lower court precedent. The uncertain and nuanced state of this area of law underscores the importance of retaining experienced cybersecurity and privacy defense counsel when faced with this type of suit.