Home Depot Settles Major Data Breach Suit with Financial Institutions for $25 Million
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.13.17
On Wednesday, in one of the most high-profile data breach settlements to date, The Home Depot agreed to pay $25 million to settle a consolidated class action involving more than 60 nationwide financial institutions harmed by the retailer’s September 2014 data breach. That month, the home improvement giant announced that hackers had installed malware on Home Depot’s checkout kiosks and, over a five-month period, stolen credit card information of more than 56 million shoppers. Immediately thereafter, financial institutions filed more than 25 suits seeking compensation for reissuance fees and fraudulent transaction reimbursements, suits that were then consolidated before a federal court in Atlanta.
The agreement requires the retailer to establish a $25 million settlement fund to reimburse financial institutions for the reissuance of credit cards compromised by the data breach. The Home Depot has also agreed to a series of additional security measures, including implementing new safeguards developed through a risk exception process and enacting new vendor security programs.
Prior to Wednesday’s announcement, The Home Depot had already spent more than $140 million to settle claims by many of the nation’s large credit card issuers – including MasterCard, Visa, American Express, and Discover – for damages sustained in this breach.
Contacts
Partner, Crowell Global Advisors Senior Director
- Washington, D.C.
- D | +1.202.624.2698
- Washington, D.C. (CGA)
- D | +1 202.624.2500
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
