3 ms·
Unless the event is especially egregious that seems unlikely. Firstly, most consumers won't even know the breach happened. Secondly, you can quickly run out of
by brewdad 3y ago
Unless the event is especially egregious that seems unlikely. Firstly, most consumers won't even know the breach happened. Secondly, you can quickly run out of places to go. Lets say I leave Target because they get hit by a ransomware attack. A year later Walmart gets hit. Do I go back to Target? Shop exclusively online? Most likely, I continue to use whatever company or service is cheapest and most convenient. All of my PII is already on the Dark Web from a hundred other breaches by now.
- lainga 3y agoYou're not thinking the Matt Levine way. None of that matters. What matters is whether said (undisclosed) event could be construed to have materially harmed the business, and thus form grounds for a shareholder suit. The Theory is half tongue in cheek. But the other half is a serious representation of what happens in reality. Levine makes the case clearer than I do how the line of thinking can extend to catch-22s where disclosure and nondisclosure could both arguably be grounds for a suit.