Chipotle Payment Card Data Breach: Financial Institutions File Leapfrog Suit
Time 2 Minute Read

On May 26, 2017, Alcoa Community Federal Credit Union (“Alcoa”), on behalf of itself, credit unions, banks and other financial institutions, filed a nationwide class action against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (“Chipotle”). The case arises from a breach of customer payment card data. The putative class consists of all such financial institutions that issued payment cards, or were involved with card-issuing services, for customers who made purchases at Chipotle from March 1, 2017, to the present. Plaintiffs allege a number of “inadequate data security measures,” including Chipotle’s decision not to implement EMV technology. 

Alcoa asserts claims for negligence and negligence per se. Both claims rest on, among other bases, a purported violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. Alcoa also requests declaratory and injunctive relief. The alleged damages include the costs of providing replacement cards, costs for consumer fraud monitoring, reimbursement of fraudulent charges, and costs due to lost interest and transaction fees due to reduced card usage.

Very few financial institution cases have been filed in the wake of consumer data breaches. However, such cases have been increasing due to a number of payment card data breaches in fairly rapid succession, including many massive breaches. These circumstances can create added costs for financial institutions that may not be fully recoverable through their direct relationships with the card brands. Additionally, because the financial institutions typically do not have contractual relationships with the breached merchants, some have chosen to leapfrog the various recovery processes established by the card brands by alleging non-contractual common law tort claims such as negligence and negligence per se.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 2 Minute Read

On April 1, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the 2024 amendment to Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, limiting damages, applies retroactively to pending cases.

Time 3 Minute Read

The results are in: attorneys are filing more employment law cases in court.  Indeed, year-end reporting from legal databases like LexMachina confirm that the pace of filing new employment discrimination cases reached its highest level in 2025, surpassing 20,000 new filings nationwide.  Though overtime and minimum wage lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) have continued to decline since 2015, discrimination cases under laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act are on the rise.

Time 1 Minute Read

A recent federal court decision determined that documents created by a criminal defendant using AI and subsequently shared with legal counsel were not shielded by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. In USA v. Heppner, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York compelled the disclosure of 31 documents created with Anthropic’s Claude. This order was issued despite the defendant including information from counsel in the AI tool’s input and later providing the resulting outputs to his attorneys. The ruling offers early judicial perspective on privilege concerns involving AI-generated materials, an area where case law remains sparse.

Time 1 Minute Read

A recent federal court ruling held that AI-generated documents prepared by a defendant and later shared with legal counsel were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page