18 Lawsuits listed in the TJX 10k, which has a lot of interesting details related to the "computer intrusion":

1. On January 19, 2007, a putative class action was filed against TJX in the United States District Court for the District of Alabama, Wood, et ano. v. TJX, Inc., et al., 07-cv-00147.
2. On January 19, 2007, a putative class action was filed against TJX in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, Ryley v. TJX Companies, Inc., et al., Court File No. 07-0278.
3. On January 19, 2007, a putative class action was filed against TJX in the Quebec Superior Court, Canada, Howick v. TJX Companies, Inc., et al., Court File No. 06-000382-073.
4. On January 20, 2007, a putative class action was filed against TJX in The Court of Queen’s Bench, Alberta, Canada, Churchman, et ano. v. The TJX Companies, Inc., et al., Court File No. 0701-00964.
5. On January 22, 2007, a putative class action was filed against TJX in The Court of Queen’s Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada, Copithorn v. TJX Companies, Inc., et al., Court File No. 100.
6. On January 26, 2007, a putative class action was filed against TJX in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, Lemley v. TJX, Inc., et al., BC365384.
7. On January 26, 2007, a putative class action was filed against TJX in the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Canada, Wong, et ano. v. The TJX Companies, Inc., et al., Court File No. CV-07-0272-00.
8. On January 29, 2007, a putative class action was filed against TJX in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Mace v. TJX Companies, Inc., 07-cv-10162.
9. On January 31, 2007, a putative class action was filed against TJX in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, Miranda, et al. v. TJX, Inc., et ano., 07-cv-01075.
10. On January 31, 2007, a putative class action was filed against TJX in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, AmeriFirst Bank v. TJX Companies, Inc., et al., 07-cv-10169.
11. On January 31, 2007, a putative class action was filed against TJX in The Court of Queen’s Bench, Manitoba, Canada, Churchman, et ano. v. The TJX Companies, Inc., et al., Court File No. 07-01-50449.
12. On February 2, 2007, a putative class action was filed against TJX in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Buckley, et al. v. TJX Companies, Inc., 07-cv-10209.
13. On February 5, 2007, a putative class action was filed against TJX in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Gaydos v. TJX Companies, Inc., et ano., 07-cv-10217.
14. On February 5, 2007, a putative class action was filed against TJX in the Superior Court of Middlesex County, Massachusetts, McMorris v. The TJX Companies, Inc., et ano., 07-0460.
15. On February 15, 2007, a putative class action was filed against TJX in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Cohen, et al. v. TJX Companies, Inc., et ano., 07-cv-10280.
16. On March 8, 2007, two putative class actions were filed against TJX in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, Salinas, et ano. v. The TJX Companies, Inc., et al., BC367531, and Pickeringv. The TJX Companies, Inc., et al., BC367530.
17. On March 16, 2007, a putative class action was filed against TJX in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Tennent v. The TJX Companies, Inc., et ano., 07-cv-00484.
18. On March 23, 2007, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Rivas, et ano. v. TJX Companies, Inc., 07-cv-10565.

It will be interesting to see how these turn out.

Here is a write up I sent to a mailing list about past court cases involving identity fraud (not credit card fraud):

There are three recent cases that all reference each other in various ways and all (in my opinion) suggest that some sort of traditional risk analysis (you know, the folk art stuff ) is not going to be nearly objective or specific enough to justify legal action. Besides this recent one being discussed [ed. - related to Wells Fargo] , they are:

Guin v. Brazos Higher Education Service Corporation, Inc. (

Stollenwerk v. TriWest Health Care Alliance, No. 03-0185 PHX SRB (D. Ariz.)

It is pretty useful to read the full opinions in each of these cases. It clarifies, for example, that the test of "due care" discussed earlier in this thread actually requires (according to the court):

(1) the defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care,

(2) the defendant breached that duty,

(3) the plaintiff sustained damage and

(4) the breach of the duty proximately caused the damage.

The courts also are clearly looking for quantified risk. Here is an excerpt from the Stollenwerk case referenced above:

"Plaintiffs’ expert opines that Plaintiffs are at an increased risk of experiencing identity fraud for the next seven years, but fails to indicate the mathematical degree to which the risk is increased despite stating that his conclusions were arrived at as a matter of scientific probability."

And another one:

"Furthermore, the affidavit of Plaintiffs’ expert conclusorily posits that Plaintiffs’ risk of identity fraud is significantly increased without quantifying this risk.2 Defining "significant" for the purpose of awarding credit monitoring is a matter of law for the Court, however, and mere allegations that an increase is significant do not constitute evidence.3"

Pretty potent stuff. Btw, in the Stollenwerk case, one of the Plaintiffs actually had his identity "stolen" but they couldn’t prove it was caused by the breach in question.

You can get the records yourself for a very small fee (< $2.00) via PACER (

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D08MNXC/06-00529.PDF)http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/psco/cgi-bin/links.pl) though I am not sure what the availability is for non-US citizens. In any case, since this is public information with no copyright restrictions I am happy to share copies of these three cases with anyone who asks (email offlist), and if someone wants to upload them somewhere on this forum, they are welcome to.