Even assuming “that personal information has an inherent value and the deprivation of such value is an injury sufficient to confer standing, [Perlaki] has failed to allege facts indicating how the value of his personal information has decreased as a result of the Data Breach.” Green v. eBay Inc., No. 14-1688, 2015 WL 2066531, at *5 n.59 (E.D. La. May 4, 2015).

Defendant argues, unconvincingly, that Plaintiff's asserted injuries are too speculative to constitute concrete harm, relying primarily on two 2015 district court cases from within the Fifth Circuit. See Peters v. St. Joseph Servs. Corp., 74 F.Supp.3d 847 (S.D. Tex. 2015); Green v. eBay Inc., Civil Action No. 14-1688, 2015 WL 2066531 (E.D. La. May 4, 2015).

There is a comparable disarray among district courts. Compare Dugas v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., No. 316CV00014GPCBLM, 2016 WL 6523428, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2016) (finding injury in fact); Corona v. Sony Pictures Entm't, Inc., No. 14-CV-09600 RGK EX, 2015 WL 3916744, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2015) (same); In re Adobe Systems, Inc. Privacy Litig., 66 F.Supp.3d 1197, 1216 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (same), with Provost v. Aptos, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02120-ELR, 2018 WL 1465766, at *5 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 12, 2018) (finding no injury in fact); In re Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., Master File No. 15-CV-222-KOB, 2016 WL 4732630, at *8 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 12, 2016) (same); Torres v. Wendy's Co., 195 F.Supp.3d 1278, 1283 (M.D. Fla. 2016) (same); Green v. eBay, Inc., No. 14-1688, 2015 WL 2066531, at *6 (E.D. La. May 4, 2015) (same); Storm v. Paytime, Inc., 90 F.Supp.3d 359, 364 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (same). For purposes of this Order, however, the Court will focus on the circuit court decisions that have addressed the issue.

It rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the breach increased their risk of future harm because "most courts to consider the issue ‘have agreed that the mere loss of data—without any evidence that it has been either viewed or misused—does not constitute an injury sufficient to confer standing.’ " Chambliss, 189 F.Supp.3d at 570, 2016 WL 3055299, at *4 (quoting SAIC, 45 F.Supp.3d at 19 ) (citing In re Zappos.com, Inc., 108 F.Supp.3d 949, 958–59 (D.Nev.2015) ; Green v. eBay, Inc., No. 14–1688, 2015 WL 2066531, at *5 (E.D.La. May 4, 2015) ; In re Horizon Healthcare Servs., Inc. Data Breach Litig., No. 13–7418, 2015 WL 1472483, at *6 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2015) ; Key v. DSW, Inc., 454 F.Supp.2d 684, 689 (S.D.Ohio 2006) ). The court added that "since Clapper[,] ... courts have been even more emphatic in rejecting ‘increased risk’ as a theory of standing in data-breach cases."

The majority of courts post-Clapper have rejected the threat of future harm in data breach cases as insufficient to confer standing absent allegations that harm is "certainly impending." See, e.g., Whalen , 153 F.Supp.3d at 583 ; In re Zappos.com, Inc. , 108 F.Supp.3d 949, 958–59 (D. Nev. 2015) ; Green v. eBay, Inc. , No. 14–1688, 2015 WL 2066531, at *6 (E.D. La. May 4, 2015) ; Storm v. Paytime, Inc. , 90 F.Supp.3d 359, 364 (M.D. Pa. 2015). For these courts, one influential factor is the number of plaintiffs in the class action who experienced fraudulent charges.

R. Doc. 8-1 at 9. Id. (citing Green v. eBay, Inc., Civ. A. No. 14-1688, 2015 WL 2066531 at *1 (E.D.La. May 4, 2015) (Morgan, J.); see also Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 133 S.Ct. 1138 (2013)). Id. at 14 (citing Credit Report Q&A: What are inquires and how do they affect my FICO score?, http://www.myfico.com/crediteducation/questions/inquiry-credit-score.aspx).

Although no courts in this circuit have addressed the standing requirements in the context of data breach litigation, most courts to consider the issue "have agreed that the mere loss of data—without any evidence that it has been either viewed or misused—does not constitute an injury sufficient to confer standing." In re Science Applications Int'l Corp. Backup Tape Data Th eft Litig. , 45 F.Supp.3d 14, 19 (D.D.C.2014) ; accordIn re Zappos.com, Inc. , 108 F.Supp.3d 949, 958–59 (D.Nev.2015) ; In reHorizon Healthcare Servs., Inc. Data Breach Litig. , No. 13–7418, 2015 WL 1472483, at *6 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2015) ; Green v. eBay, Inc. , No. 14–1688, 2015 WL 2066531, at *5 (E.D.La. May 4, 2015) ; Key v. DSW , Inc. , 454 F.Supp.2d 684, 689 (S.D.Ohio 2006). Indeed, "since Clapper ... courts have been even more emphatic in rejecting ‘increased risk’ as a theory of standing in data-breach cases."

We agree with the holdings in those cases.") (internal citations omitted); In re Zappos.com, Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., ----F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 12-00325, 2015 WL 3466943, at *5 (D. Nev. June 1, 2015) ("The majority of courts dealing with data-breach cases post-Clapper have held that absent allegations of actual identity theft or other fraud, the increased risk of such harm alone is insufficient to satisfy Article III standing."); Galaria v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 998 F. Supp. 2d 646, 654-56 (S.D. Ohio 2014); Green v. eBay, Inc., No. 14-1688, 2015 WL 2066531, at *3 n.33 (E.D. La. May 4, 2015) (listing cases); Whalen v. Michael Stores, Inc., No. 14-7006, 2015 WL 9462108, at *4-*5 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2015); Strautins v. Trustwave Holdings, Inc., 27 F. Supp. 3d 871, 876-77 (N.D. Ill. 2014); Storm v. Paytime, Inc., 90 F. Supp. 3d 359, 364-68 (M.D. Pa. 2015); Lewert v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., No. 14-4787, 2014 WL 7005097, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 2014).