Class Action Suit Filed Against Cloud Service over Data Breach
Time 2 Minute Read

A putative class action complaint filed on June 22, 2011, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleges that the popular cloud-based storage provider Dropbox, Inc. failed to secure users’ private data or to notify the vast majority of them about a data breach.  According to the complaint, Dropbox announced in a blog post on its website that it had “introduced a bug” on June 19, 2011, which allowed users logged in to its system to log into other users’ accounts and access those users’ data stored on Dropbox.  The complaint further claims that Dropbox did not notify most, if not all, of its 25 million users that their information had been compromised.  The complaint defines the plaintiff class as all current or former Dropbox users as of June 19, 2011, whose accounts were breached.

The suit – which states claims for violation of the California unfair competition law, invasion of privacy, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranty – is the second recent legal challenge to Dropbox’s security measures.  As we previously reported, in May 2011 a complaint submitted to the Federal Trade Commission alleged that Dropbox made false claims about the security of its users’ data.

Among other things, the plaintiffs allege that Dropbox’s failure to disclose the breach to users constituted a fraudulent act or practice in violation of California’s unfair competition law, and that Dropbox violated users’ reasonable expectation of privacy in the private data they stored on Dropbox by failing to safeguard their data.  The negligence claim states that Dropbox failed in its duties to have procedures preventing unauthorized access of private data, and to disclose the breach in a timely manner.

The complaint requests that Dropbox institute reasonable security measures to prevent similar incidents in the future, and actual, compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs.

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 2 Minute Read

California has introduced Assembly Bill 2244, proposing a pioneering “California Certified” labeling standard for foods not classified as ultra-processed. The bill relies on forthcoming regulatory definitions and imposes retail placement requirements for qualifying products. As California continues to advance UPF regulation, this initiative is expected to shape food law trends nationwide.

Time 1 Minute Read

As reported on the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives blog, SB 574 is a California bill that would set specific duties for attorneys who use generative artificial intelligence and would restrict how arbitrators may use such tools in decision-making.

Time 1 Minute Read

The California Consumer Privacy Act continues to drive significant enforcement activity—particularly when minors’ data is involved. In a recent action, the California Privacy Protection Agency imposed a $1.1 million fine on youth sports platform PlayOn Sports for alleged violations involving student data and inadequate opt-out mechanisms. The case highlights growing regulatory scrutiny around how companies collect, share, and provide transparency about personal information—especially when schools and students are involved. 

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Archives

Jump to Page