Antman et al v. Uber Technologies Inc.

Northern District

U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel D. Beeler

Defense Lawyers: Michael Li-Ming Wong, Abbey A. Berrera, Joshua A. Jessen, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Plaintiff's Lawyers: Tina Wolfson, Robert Ahdoot, Theodore W. Maya, Ahdoot & Wilson PC

Former Uber Technologies Inc. driver Sasha Antman filed a potential class action against the company over the May 2014 hacking of drivers' personal information. About 50,000 drivers were in the potential class; they sought more than $10 million plus attorney fees.

In May, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel D. Beeler, for the third time, dismissed the action in its entirety, this time with prejudice. The plaintiffs have taken the dismissal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP partner Michael Li-Ming Wong, representing Uber, defended his client against allegations that Uber was liable because it failed to destroy personally identifiable information after the plaintiff was no longer a driver for the company.

Antman claimed that after the data breach, someone attempted to obtain a credit card in his name using the stolen data.

Wong secured dismissal by arguing that Uber drivers lacked standing because the specific information alleged to have been compromised, driver's license numbers and bank account information, did not rise to the level of injury recognized by U.S. Supreme Court precedents.

Beeler agreed that Antman lacked standing because he could not prove a causal connection between the breach and the use of his data. Antman did not claim that his Social Security number was stolen from Uber's systems, yet the number was used on the fraudulent credit card application.

It was an application of Article III standing principles to modern technology. Wong said that litigants in other data breach matters have cited the case as authority. Antman et. al. v. Uber Technologies Inc., 15-CV1175 (N.D. Cal., filed March 12, 2015).

Tina Wolfson and Theodore W. Maya of Ahdoot & Wilson PC, representing Antman, did not respond to a message requesting comment. They asserted that the data breaches created "a material risk of identity theft" because hackers could use the information to locate additional financial data and possibly commit fraud.

But Beeler, in rejecting the claim, ruled plaintiffs must show they "suffered an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision."

"It's always gratifying to get a clean knockout win," Wong said. "They never get old."

-- John Roemer