MenuClose
mm
John G. Papianou is a partner in the Litigation Department of Montgomery McCracken. John concentrates his practice in complex civil litigation, with particular emphasis on consumer class actions involving claims under state consumer protection statutes. He has counseled and represented numerous clients in consumer class actions across the country.
Feb 02

When Is A Statutory Violation—Without More—Sufficient To Confer Standing

When the United States Supreme Court decided Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), a little over a year ago, many lawyers believed the court’s decision would settle a rather simple question: if a defendant violates a statute, is that sufficient for a… Read More

Apr 19

Still Standing: Data Breach Class Action Against P.F. Chang’s Revived on Appeal

This guest post was authored by our colleague Stephen A. Grossman, a partner and chair of Montgomery McCracken’s Data Privacy and Cybersecurity practice, and co-chair of its E-Discovery practice. He can be reached at sgrossman@mmwr.com or 856-488-7767. We have previously written here and here on… Read More

Jun 04

Allegheny County Judge Rules that Pennsylvania Does Not Recognize Negligence Claims in Data Breach Actions

A Pittsburgh-area judge recently ruled that Pennsylvania does not recognize negligence claims in data breach lawsuits. Dittman v. UPMC, No. GD-14-003285 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Allegheny Cnty., May 28, 2015). The case centers on a data breach in 2014 involving the University of Pittsburgh Medical… Read More

Mar 20

When Does a Hack Become a Compensable Harm in Federal Court?

This guest post was co-authored by Montgomery McCracken partner Michael B. Hayes and associate David F. Herman, both of the firm’s Litigation Department. Michael can be reached at 215.772.7211 or at mhayes@mmwr.com. David can be reached at 215.772.7614 or at dherman@mmwr.com. No business wants to… Read More

Jun 17

Another Post-Clapper Data Privacy Breach Case Dismissed for Lack of Standing

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013), continues to be relied on by federal courts to hold that “mere loss of data” or “increased risk of identity theft” in a data breach case does not constitute… Read More