Krottner v. Starbucks Corp. (9th Cir. 2010) 628 F.3d 1139 remains good law despite later US Supreme Court cases regarding Art. III standing. Plaintiffs adequately alleged injury in fact under Krottner from a data security breach based on a substantial risk that the Zappos hackers will commit identity fraud or identity theft. Plaintiffs also sufficiently alleged that the risk of future harm they faced was “fairly traceable” to the conduct being challenged and is redressable by the relief they sought by their suit.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Friedland, J.); March 8, 2018 (amended April 20, 2018); 2018 WL 1883212