In each of these cases, the plaintiffs sought to certify class proceedings against Database Defendants who had experienced a data breach where threat actors hacked the defendants’ computer networks and compromised their data, including the personal information of proposed class members. The Court held that defendants who collect and store personal information of individuals (the Database Defendants) cannot be held liable under the intentional tort of intrusion upon seclusion in the context of a data breach by a third-party hacker. In June 2022, the Court heard the three appeals consecutively, and released its decisions together in November 2022. In a trilogy of privacy class action certification appeals, the Ontario Court of Appeal ( ONCA) refused to certify three class actions based on the tort of intrusion upon seclusion first recognized in Jones v.

Read the full edition: Privacy Jurisprudence Review Organisme canadien de réglementation du commerce des valeurs mobilières (OCRCVM), 2023 CanLII 24495 (CSC) Marriott International, Inc., 2022 ONCA 815 Trans Union of Canada, Inc., 2022 ONCA 814 It will also provide over 42,000 consumers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Virginia with complimentary credit-monitoring services for 18 months, worth about $13 million.Ĭlass Members of the Equifax class action settlement include all consumers in Pennsylvania, Virginia and New Jersey who were sent a letter by Equifax which contained language substantially similar to the letter at issue in this litigation, beginning Septemfor Pennsylvania Class Members Mafor New Jersey Class Members and Februfor Virginia Class Members through June 6, 2010. Under the terms of the Equifax class action settlement, Equifax will revise the letters it sends to consumers who dispute the accuracy of their credit reports.

Equifax never discloses the true sources of the public records it reports about them,” the class action states. As such, consumers who are the subject of an inaccurate Equifax public record are thrust into an endless maze of wasting time and energy in an effort to ascertain the true source of the inaccurate public record being reported about them. “Additionally, if Equifax fails to remove an inaccurate public record from a consumers’ credit report, Equifax advises the consumer to take up his or her dispute with the ‘source’ of the public record. In reality, however, Equifax never directly contacted the original source of a public record when investigating a consumer dispute, and used a third-party company to investigate the disputed information. The Equifax settlement was reached in response to several class action lawsuits filed against the company in 20 that accused Equifax of falsely representing to consumers who had disputed the accuracy of public records information reported about them by Equifax that it had directly contacted the original source of the public records and taken the appropriate steps necessary to remove the inaccurate items.Īccording to one of the Equifax class action lawsuits, filed in New Jersey, Equifax violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by sending letters that falsely told consumers that it confirmed the accuracy of disputed public-record information by contacting the source directly. Over 42,000 consumers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Virginia will receive benefits under the Equifax settlement. Credit-rating giant Equifax has agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement for allegedly misrepresenting the methods it uses to confirm the accuracy of credit-report items disputed by consumers.