> In my understanding, there has to be actual damages arising out of an action. Depends on the specific tort, but actual damages aren't the only thing for whic

> In my understanding, there has to be actual damages arising out of an action. Depends on the specific tort, but actual damages aren't the only thing for which there can be liability. Statutory damages, punitive damages, and non-damages based liability (unjust enrichment, disgorgement of profits, etc.) are all things that exist for various torts. > "I could have been hacked, so I had to spend time/money on it" isn't actual damages unless they were _actually_ hacked. Why wouldn't reasonable costs incurred to determine or rule out adverse effects of a wrongful act be considered actual damages of that act?