Aboutwhy sjkplawyerspracticesInsightsCase StudyNewsLocations
Digital Evidence

Cybersecurity Litigation

After an incident, the company that was attacked often looks for someone who should share the cost: the managed service provider, the software vendor, or the insurer that declined part of the claim.

Reviewed

01 GUIDE

Cybersecurity Litigation: what usually happens

Claims against vendors and service providers

Many intrusions begin at a vendor, through a compromised remote management tool, a tainted software update, or a cloud configuration someone else managed. Whether the vendor is responsible depends mostly on the contract, including its security commitments and the clauses that limit liability or shift it through indemnity. Those clauses are frequently written to cap the vendor's exposure well below the customer's actual loss. Negligence claims between contracting businesses can run into rules that limit recovery of purely economic loss, and courts apply those rules differently. Preserving the evidence that ties the intrusion to the vendor, including logs and access records on both sides, matters from the outset.

Coverage disputes

Cyber insurance claims can turn into litigation over exclusions, sublimits, consent requirements, and how a loss is measured. Disputes have arisen over whether war or hostile-act exclusions reach attacks attributed to nation-states, whether business interruption losses were properly calculated, and whether the policyholder followed notice and vendor approval terms. Traditional liability and property policies are sometimes tested after an incident as well, with mixed results. Reading the policy closely before costs are incurred, and documenting losses as they happen, makes a later dispute far easier to manage.

Other directions claims can come from

Business customers whose data or operations were affected may bring their own claims, often under the contracts between you. Shareholders of public companies sometimes sue over disclosures about security or about the incident itself. Banks and payment networks may pursue card-related losses through their own processes. When companies come to us, we sort these potential claims by likelihood and size, identify which contracts and policies govern each one, and coordinate positions so that what is said to an insurer, a customer, and a court stays consistent. Contract and policy deadlines for notifying counterparties and insurers can be short, and they are easy to miss in the middle of recovery work.

02 ATTORNEYS

Who you would be working with

Attorneys at our New York and Washington, D.C. offices handle matters like this one.

05 HOW WE WORK

Client-centered service across jurisdictions

Global Coordination & Expertise

We deliver coordinated and effective legal services to our clients, utilizing our extensive legal resources and experienced attorneys in our well-integrated global network. Through our Washington D.C. and New York offices, together with our alliance

Multilingual & Cross-Border Communication

Our attorneys are experienced in both domestic and international matters and, with fluency in various languages, provide clear and consistent communication at every stage of your legal process.

Client-Centered Approach

Client service lies at the heart of our operations. From the initial consultation, we prioritize understanding your situation, listening to your goals, and providing regular updates and strategies tailored to your individual case.

Multidisciplinary & Efficient Solutions

Our multidisciplinary approach and established processes enable us to address cross-border challenges with efficiency.

06 OFFICES

Where we meet clients

Consultations are available in person or remotely.

New York

285 Fulton Street, New York, NY 10007
(855) 529-7557

Washington, D.C.

Suite 985, 1717 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006
(855) 529-7557

Los Angeles

1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 820, Los Angeles, CA 90067
(424) 561-7557

Attorney Advertising. This page is general information about cybersecurity litigation and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Outcomes depend on the facts of each matter, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Laws differ by state and change over time.