trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification on the grounds that plaintiff failed to establish either the required elements of commonality or typicality under OCGA § 9-11-23 (a). In finding a lack of commonality, the trial court noted the differences in the type of documents disclosed with respect to members of the proposed class, as some contained diagnosis and treatment information, while others did not. Id. at *4. Relatedly, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff’s claims did not satisfy the element of typicality because some members of the proposed class had clinical information revealed, while plaintiff did not. The plaintiff appealed, and the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision. The Court of Appeals rejected the trial court’s findings on commonality and typicality, and instead concluded that with respect to typicality, the plaintiff’s claims and those of the putative class arose “from the same alleged events” and were “based on the same legal theories.” Id. at *6. On further appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and held that the trial court acted within its discretion in finding a lack of typicality. The Georgia Supreme Court opined that the trial court’s order reflected that it conducted the rigorous analysis contemplated by the Georgia statute for class actions. Id. at *9-10. In addition, it found that the trial court properly concluded that the plaintiff’s claims “do not represent the claims of all of the proposed class members because some of [the patients had] clinical information revealed whereas [the plaintiff] has not” which “leads to factual and legal differences between the claims in the case.” Id. at *13. Further, the Georgia Supreme Court held that since the trial court’s class certification order was “within the reasonable range of possible outcomes, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by finding a lack of typicality and denying [plaintiff’s] motion for class certification on that basis.” Id. at *16-17. Accordingly, it held that the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the trial court wrongly failed to certify the class on the basis of typicality, and reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision. III. Top Data Breach Class Action Settlements In 2024 Data breach class actions in 2024 were robust. The top 10 settlements totaled $593.2 million. This was a significant increase over 2023, when the top ten data breach class actions totaled $515.75 million.
1. $350 million – In Re Alphabet Inc. Securities Litigation , Case No. 18-CV-6245 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2024) (final settlement approval granted in a class action alleging that a software glitch led to a data breach in which Google+ users’ personal data was exposed for three years).
14
© Duane Morris LLP 2025
Duane Morris Data Breach Class Action Review – 2025
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online