Firms start to build easyJet data breach claims


Easyjet: Nine million customers affected

Law firms are beginning to build groups of easyJet customers to bring a collective action over the data breach the airline announced last month.

PGMBM and Hayes Connor are both advertising for customers to sign up, while other firms, such as Leigh Day, say they are investigating possible claims.

PGMBM – which recently changed its name from SPG Law – has gained headlines by issuing a claim form and putting easyJet’s potential liability at £18bn, or £2,000 per impacted customer, under GDPR.

Article 82 says customers have a right to compensation for inconvenience, distress, annoyance and loss of control of their personal data.

EasyJet announced on the 19 May 2020 that sensitive personal data of nine million customers from around the world had been exposed in a data breach – four months after the breach itself occurred and notifying the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The data included full names, email addresses and travel data, such as departure, arrival and booking dates.

PGMBM said the exposure of details of individuals’ personal travel patterns “may pose security risks to individuals and is a gross invasion of privacy”, although easyJet said there was “no evidence that personal information of any nature has been misused”.

The firm said it would now seek a group litigation order, having instructed counsel from Serle Court and 4 New Square.

Tom Goodhead, PGMBM managing partner, said: “This is a monumental data breach and a terrible failure of responsibility that has a serious impact on easyJet’s customers.

“This is personal information that we trust companies with, and customers rightly expect that every effort is made to protect their privacy.”

PGMBM said it would take a maximum of 30% of clients’ compensation, while Hayes Connor said its cap was 25%.




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog

23 November 2020

Technicalities and realities – the battle over clin neg ATE premiums

A paying party in a clinical negligence case is seeking to argue that a Tomlin order is not a relevant “order for costs” and therefore the ATE premium is not payable. This should be given short shrift.

Read More