A Madison John Doe sued the Ashley Madison website in U.S. District Court in Jackson on September 8. He seeks an unspecified amount of actual and punitive damages.
The plaintiff states that he "purchased credits and communicated with other members of the website" but stopped using the site three years ago. He claims he told his spouse about it and they rebuilt their marriage. He paid the $19.00 fee to have his information removed from the website. The infamous breach took place. His name appeared in the database that was posted on the internet. His spouse supposedly moved out of the house because of the "public humiliation". He also claims the publicity has affected his employment as well.
Nobody charges Ashley Madison with counts of negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy-public disclosure of private facts, and constitutional right to privacy, and breach of contract. Attorney Allison Fry of the Eaves Law Firm represents Nobody. The case is assigned to Judge Henry Wingate and referred to Magistrate Linda Anderson.
Kingfish note: When does the FTC hammer the company for retaining information that customers paid to have deleted? Consumer fraud? I've always thought the breach of contract (regarding the paid deletion issue) was where Ashley Madison was really going to pay.
24 comments:
Well, KF, with the case having been assigned to Jurge Wingate, we should know the outcome at some point in 2026. Your successor may have to report on the decision.
I agree with the KF note - Nobody paid to have their information removed, it wasn't removed and subsequently you have a hack that is publicly disclosed. Provided those are the facts, it will be hard for Ashley Mad to not pay significantly. Hope they have good insurance.
I wonder if anyone will file a complaint with the AG's consumer fraud division. It is a legitimate complaint.
People claiming their identity was stolen have told me they have and/or were going to do that. I have encouraged that if they believe their ID was truly stolen, and shown several how to do it.
The lame-ass claim that 'somebody stole my ID' might work with a few wives who are so anxious to believe their lyin'-ass husbands that they'll believe anything.
Might as well tell them someone forced you to sign up with AM at gunpoint.
See Eddie Murphy Raw... "It wasn't me" while standing there catching hubby in bed with other woman. Some wives, in fact many idiots would say... "Maybe it wasn't you?"... Those sorry women get what they deserve including awful STD exposure. Yuck! Is it really worth it ladies? Are you that cheap?
Would those be the same wives who married a Lyin cheating boyfriend? What did they expect?
and what was the intent by calling him "Jurge Wingate"? that was a typo wasn't it, because there are no racists on this site...
I had the same thought regarding the strength of the breach of contract claim for the people who paid the extra fee to have their profiles scrubbed. I think that even those who didn't pay the extra fee have a reasonable case. It seems that Ashley Madison made the security of the site a main component of their marketing.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The hackers committed a criminal act by obtaining the information. So, it's like someone breaking into a business and stealing your property that was stored there. There is a lot of stuff going on legally.
Last I checked, there's an arbitration clause in the AM contract- expect this will be headed to arbitration.
Nobody will never collect a penny. This company will be sued to bankruptcy very soon.
As someone who generally believes that most things can take place and be solved outside of a courtroom and without lawyers, this may be something that is actually very much worthy of obtaining an attorney and filing a suit over. From all accounts that I have read, this particular website and company not only promised complete confidentiality and identity security protection, but also even took extra money from the clients and users with an express promise to encrypt, hide, scrub, delete, etc., and to completely protect their personal identities, addresses, phone numbers, and their personal financial information. Ashley Madison FAILED tremendously at all of this. They have greatly damaged all of their clients and users, completely putting aside any moral issues, in not only an extremely personal way, but have opened their clients up to a plethora of financial problems and exposed them to fraud and theft. Not to mention the emotional damage, including potential job loss and thus income earning potential. I hope the folks that have been greatly damaged by Ashley Madison get justice, and maybe by suing them is the only way.
So, Mid Life Lawyer; If somebody breaks into my bank and steals my money, will you represent me in a suit against the bank?
Thought not.
It looks more and more as if AM was a consumer scam.
One Call Ain't All,
You should stick to flipping burgers or whatever work you find yourself with this week rather than commenting on how to plead a case. It wouldn't be difficult to make a prima facie case under these facts.
Cheaters aside....if you can sue over this, then get ready for everybody to sue everybody. Nobody can keep s***private. The IRS has been hacked, the state department, Sony, JP Morgan, Home Depot. Save your lawsuits for hacks that expose your MONEY, not your stupidity.
there's always a 9:05
single dimensional thinking..... and just plain stupid
9:05 I believe we already have the legal answer. When a doctor or engineer is sued for malpractice his defense is that he used 'that degree of skill and learning ordinarily possessed and used by other members of the profession.' or language similar to that. Seems to me that no one, including the Federal Government, can guarantee absolute security of online information. Since it is virtually impossible to keep this information 100% secure at all times against any and all attacks, the standard should be 'reasonable care' or some similar term. So the trial would be not only about what the site claimed they would do about security, but about what they actually did do and how that compared with what others do to protect online information. If they can show that they took reasonable security measures or even better if they can show that their measures were better than other online companies they would have a defense.
My guess is the truth is that many of the 'women' on the site were fakes and also the quality of their security was poor. But the fact that their security was breached do not necessarily mean the security was bad. It might mean that the person who hacked them was really good and really determined.
7:53; the analogy of suing a bank following a robbery is appropriate, notwithstanding your weak attempt to discredit it. You just go ahead and waddle around in the piss-water of prima facia cases and leave reasonable analogies to some of the rest of us who are better able to make them. Umm K, thanks......
Anyone who doesn't think that many innocent folks (especially women) were "harmed" by Ashley Madison and all those who published their fictitious names doesn't understand the nature of the legal issue of "defamation."
That is why I think the strongest argument is the breach of contract. They paid to have information deleted and it was not deleted.
I like McAfee's theory that there was no hack but the information was stolen by an employee.
Yeah, all of your late night typing on a blog is pretty damn convincing. A jury will likely laugh you out of the courtroom.
I see a Lifetime movie in the making . . . .
Seems to me the hackers should be named defendants also. No allegations concerning service of process on the Canadian defendants, the Hague convention, etc.. Interesting not even one known plaintiff is named.
Post a Comment