This article provides an overview of employment data breach class actions, cybersecurity best practices to defend employment data breach class actions, emerging trends in such litigation, and the use of artificial intelligence and technology in related investigations.
Overview of Employment Data Breach Class Action Litigation
Class action litigation over data breaches has surged, with plaintiffs filing lawsuits almost immediately after both major and minor breach disclosures. High-profile breach cases consistently capture headlines, and in recent years, countless companies have suffered large-scale incidents that exposed hundreds of millions of records, according to annual data breach reports issued by IBM Corp., Verizon and the Identity Theft Resource Center, which have documented sustained increases in both the volume and scale of reported breaches in recent years.[1]
Breach-related class actions have quickly emerged as one of the fastest growing areas of complex litigation. Each reported breach triggers a wave of negative publicity, followed by one or more lawsuits. Well-known corporations — including Facebook and its parent company Meta Platforms Inc. — have faced litigation after incidents that compromised vast amounts of consumer and employee data.[2]
Litigation activity rose sharply in 2024.This was partially fueled by the National Public Data breach in 2024, involving a background check data broker, which revealed significant vulnerabilities and compromised sensitive information on a massive scale.
Cybercriminals also drove this rise by adopting more sophisticated attack methods. Ransomware attacks, in particular, spiked in 2024, as reflected in cybersecurity industry reports from CrowdStrike Holdings Inc., Palo Alto Networks and Mandiant Inc., documenting year-over-year increases in ransomware incidents and extortion activity.[4]
Even when companies paid, hackers often retained the information, raising concerns that ransom payments only encourage further attacks. Remote and hybrid work models, expanded use of cloud storage and advanced cybercrime networks have created additional risks. These conditions will likely produce more large-scale breaches — and, in turn, more class actions.
A decade ago, plaintiffs rarely succeeded in breach-related class actions. Recent judicial developments, however, have shifted the balance. Plaintiffs now more easily demonstrate standing and argue duty, causation and damages. Courts generally accept standing when plaintiffs show direct economic harm or plausibly allege unauthorized access, but continue to contest standing for class members who lack evidence that criminals misused their data.
To fill this gap, plaintiffs frequently claim various injuries, including loss of personal information of economic value, overpayment for services, loss of benefit of the bargain, increased spam, emotional distress, misuse of accounts and heightened risk of identity theft. Plaintiffs also invoke state law causes of action, particularly negligence claims, which often survive dismissal because industry data security standards can define the duty of care.
The financial stakes have grown considerably. Several 2024 settlements reached substantial amounts, reflecting the massive size of breach-affected classes and the sensitivity of compromised data, such as health and financial records. Courts now show greater willingness to recognize potential harm, even without immediate financial injury, which has helped plaintiffs secure larger payouts.
The complexity of these cases also drives up legal costs. Law firms must dedicate significant resources and employ specialized experts, which further raises litigation expenses for both sides.
Companies across various industries must respond to this evolving litigation environment by investing heavily in cybersecurity and incident response. Organizations that build and test comprehensive incident response plans reduce breach-related costs and improve their positions in litigation and regulatory proceedings.
Tabletop exercises — i.e., structured, scenario-based simulations in which leadership and response teams walk through a mock cyber incident — and rapid response playbooks provide critical tools for detecting, investigating and containing cybersecurity incidents.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs bar continues to press the boundaries of breach litigation by advancing novel theories of harm and damages. Although attackers may employ different methods to compromise systems, the legal issues surrounding data loss and theft fall within recurring frameworks. Courts will continue to confront these claims as breach-related litigation expands.
Cybersecurity Best Practices for Reducing Legal Exposure
At the heart of any effective risk management strategy lies a commitment to robust cybersecurity best practices. Courts, regulators and plaintiffs attorneys routinely scrutinize an organization's security posture after a breach. Companies that can demonstrate adherence to recognized industry standards are far better positioned to defend themselves against claims of negligence or statutory violations.
First, organizations should conduct regular risk assessments to identify vulnerabilities within their systems. These assessments should evaluate both technological weaknesses and organizational blind spots, including access controls, data retention practices and third-party vendor management. Documenting these assessments is crucial. In litigation, evidence of proactive risk identification and mitigation often serves as a shield against allegations of recklessness or gross negligence.
Second, employers must implement and continuously update data protection policies and incident response plans. A sound data protection policy outlines how sensitive information is collected, stored, accessed and disposed of. It should include principles of data minimization — such as limiting the collection and retention of data to only what is necessary for business operations. By reducing the volume of sensitive data on hand, organizations inherently reduce the fallout from any potential breach.
Incident response plans are equally critical. These plans should provide a detailed road map for responding to security incidents, from detection and containment to notification and remediation. Organizations must test these plans regularly through tabletop exercises or simulations to ensure that they work in practice, not just on paper. Courts have little patience for companies that are caught flat-footed by foreseeable cyber threats.
Further, best practices demand robust access controls and encryption protocols. Limiting data access on a need-to-know basis, using multifactor authentication, and encrypting sensitive data both at rest and in transit are now baseline expectations in most industries. Employers that fail to implement such controls leave themselves vulnerable to claims of failing to meet industry standards.
Finally, organizations must stay informed about the evolving legal landscape. Noncompliance not only increases regulatory risk, but also fuels plaintiffs' arguments that a company failed to take reasonable steps to protect personal data.
Employee Training and Awareness
Even the most sophisticated security infrastructure can be undone by a single careless employee. Human error — whether through phishing, weak passwords or mishandling sensitive data — remains one of the leading causes of data breaches. For this reason, employee training and awareness are essential components of any litigation risk mitigation strategy.
Effective training begins with clear and accessible policies. Employees at all levels must understand the organization's expectations regarding data security. Policies should be written in plain language, regularly updated and readily available. They should cover topics such as secure password practices, recognizing phishing attempts, proper use of mobile devices and protocols for reporting suspicious activity.
Training should not be a one-time event. Instead, organizations should deliver ongoing education through various formats — including live sessions, e-learning modules, simulated phishing exercises and regular security bulletins. These efforts reinforce awareness and keep security top of mind.
Leaders must also cultivate a culture of accountability and vigilance. This means encouraging employees to report potential security incidents without fear of retaliation or blame. Anonymous reporting channels and clear escalation paths foster a proactive security posture. Recognizing and rewarding good security behaviors can further embed best practices into the organizational culture.
Moreover, employers should tailor training to specific roles. Employees who have access to particularly sensitive data — such as human resources, finance or information technology personnel — require more in-depth instruction on secure handling practices and legal obligations. This targeted approach ensures that those in the most vulnerable positions are equipped to mitigate risk effectively.
Finally, organizations must ensure that training records are meticulously documented. In the aftermath of a breach, demonstrating a consistent history of employee education can serve as compelling evidence that the company took reasonable measures to prevent the incident, thus helping to blunt claims of negligence in litigation.
Proactive Security and Training Measures
Employers that prioritize cybersecurity best practices and employee education enjoy a significant litigation advantage. Courts often assess the reasonableness of a company's security efforts through the lens of industry standards and regulatory guidance. Demonstrating compliance with recognized frameworks positions defendants to argue that they met or exceeded the duty of care.
Plaintiffs attorneys look for patterns of negligence, outdated policies or obvious security gaps to build their cases. By investing in modern security infrastructure and ongoing employee education, companies reduce the likelihood of such vulnerabilities surfacing in discovery.
Proactive measures may also limit the scope and severity of any breach. Rapid detection and response can contain incidents before widespread harm occurs, reducing the pool of potential plaintiffs and the magnitude of potential damages. Moreover, regulators are more likely to view companies favorably when they can show that they took preventive steps seriously, potentially mitigating penalties.
Finally, organizations that demonstrate a commitment to data security may find settlement negotiations to be more favorable. Plaintiffs may have less leverage where the company can credibly argue that it acted responsibly, limiting potential exposure and reputational harm.
In the evolving landscape of data breach litigation, prevention is the most effective defense strategy. Employers that invest in cybersecurity best practices, enforce rigorous policies and foster a culture of awareness through comprehensive training place themselves in the strongest possible position to defend against future claims.
Emerging Trends in Data Breach Litigation
Emerging trends in data breach litigation reflect a rapidly evolving legal and technological landscape, with courts, regulators and litigants adapting to the new realities of cybersecurity threats. One notable trend is the increasing focus on the actual misuse of data, with courts scrutinizing whether plaintiffs can demonstrate concrete harm, rather than relying solely on speculative future injuries.
At the same time, plaintiffs counsel strategies are becoming more sophisticated, frequently bringing claims under a patchwork of state consumer protection statutes, biometric privacy laws and even common law invasion of privacy theories, alongside traditional negligence and contract claims.
Another development is the growing judicial skepticism toward overbroad classes, particularly where individualized questions about causation, harm or mitigation predominate. Defendants are also more aggressively utilizing arbitration clauses and contractual defenses to limit exposure.
Additionally, regulators and state attorneys general are playing a more active role, often launching parallel investigations or actions, which can complicate the litigation landscape for employers.
Finally, with the rise of AI and interconnected systems, courts increasingly consider whether companies have taken reasonable steps to protect data in light of evolving industry standards, heightening the importance of robust cybersecurity policies and proactive risk management.
Increasing Use of AI and Technology in Investigations
The increasing use of AI and advanced technology in both internal forensic investigations and regulatory investigations has become a pivotal development in defending data breach class actions.
Employers and defense counsel are leveraging sophisticated AI-powered forensic tools to rapidly identify the source, scope and impact of a breach with greater accuracy than ever before. These technologies can analyze vast datasets to trace unauthorized access, detect patterns that are indicative of malicious activity, and assess whether compromised data was accessed or exfiltrated — an issue that is central to standing and damages arguments.
Moreover, AI-driven tools assist in mapping data ecosystems and pinpointing vulnerabilities, enabling defense teams to craft more precise narratives around causation and mitigation efforts. By utilizing these technologies proactively, employers can not only strengthen their defenses, but also shape their discovery strategies, rebut speculative claims, and support motions for dismissal or summary judgment with concrete, technical evidence.
As courts increasingly expect sophistication in how companies understand and manage cybersecurity incidents, the integration of AI into breach investigations has become both a defensive necessity and a strategic advantage.
Conclusion
As data breaches continue to rise in scale and complexity, the future of defending class actions in this area will demand a more proactive, strategic and technically informed approach.
Companies must invest in robust cybersecurity and incident response protocols, not only to prevent breaches but also to position themselves favorably in potential litigation. Legal defenses will increasingly rely on demonstrating reasonable security measures, prompt breach notification and transparency in response efforts.
At the same time, courts are becoming more sophisticated in assessing standing, harm and fairness in settlements, raising the bar for both plaintiffs and defendants.
As legal standards evolve and regulatory scrutiny intensifies, organizations that anticipate litigation risks and engage experienced cybersecurity professionals early will be best positioned to mitigate exposure and defend themselves effectively in this high-stakes landscape.
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. is a partner and chair of the class action defense group at Duane Morris LLP.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of their employer, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
This article is excerpted from Practical Guidance, a comprehensive practice resource that includes practice notes, checklists, and model annotated forms drafted by experienced attorneys to help lawyers effectively and efficiently complete their daily tasks.
Law360 and Practical Guidance are both owned by Lexis Nexis Legal & Professional, a RELX company.
[1] IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report (https://cdn.table.media/assets/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/30132828/Cost-of-a-Data-Breach-Report-2024.pdf); Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report (https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/2024-dbir-data-breach-investigations-report.pdf); Identity Theft Resource Center Annual Data Breach Report (https://www.idtheftcenter.org/publication/2024-data-breach-report/).
[2] See, e.g., In re: Facebook Inc. Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation , No. 3:18-md-02843 (N.D. Cal.).
[3] See Duane Morris Data Breach Class Action Review 2025
[4] See https://www.crowdstrike.com/en-us/blog/crowdstrike-2024-global-threat-report; https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/blog/2026/02/unit-42-global-ir-report; and https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/m-trends-2024.
Reprinted with permission of Law360.
