British Airways agrees to pay compensation in the 2018 data breach lawsuit

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

• David says:

  6 Jul6 July 07:48

  I think the law firms work for their own interests first.

  I would presume that the amount offered would fall well short of their initial amounts claimed, which only would induce people to sign up.

  However, it would have to be of an amount sufficient to cover their costs and give them a profit, otherwise why accept given their confidence?

  But if modest that might mean difficulty signing new people up.

  It would be interesting to see what effect this has for other cases. I’d imagine the majority of participants would have not seen anything done with their data (although does not rule that something might in future). So this may put a ballpark price on an amount received for a data breach; I don’t see why the penalty should change dependent on company as in theory the data was leaked to the same people.

  • A says:

    6 Jul6 July 07:56

    Law firms who don’t put their clients interests first are in breach of their regulatory obligations. It’s one of the SRA’s regulatory principles that solicitors must act in the best interests of their clients.

    • Chrisasaurus says:

      6 Jul6 July 08:57

      Well put it another way – do you see a law firm starting a class action that they felt wouldn’t pay out enough to make them a profit?

      • A says:

        6 Jul6 July 09:01

        No, of course not – nobody is starting a class action if they think it won’t be profitable. That’s economics.

        But once they’ve on-boarded clients, they aren’t going to accept an offer of £x when £x+y is reasonably likely to be achievable, both because of economics but also their duty to their clients.

        • Rob says:

          6 Jul6 July 09:05

          They might, because there are only 16,000 people to split the costs between.

          Let’s imagine it would be another £1m of legal fees to go to trial. This is £62.50 per person. The law firms take 30% of your cash. This means that they need to be convinced that the trial would get at least £208 more than BA’s offer just to break even – and they are gambling £1m on it.

  • Jonathan says:

    6 Jul6 July 14:34

    The 30% is the success fee the law firm take as a pure profit bonus. Their costs are deducted from the total settlement before they work out the individual compo amount.

    They may have negotiated for their fees to be paid separately by BA but either way they’re well covered.

  • Alan says:

    7 Jul7 July 17:08

    There has been speculation of around £2,000, based on that being the ballpark figure for other similar data breaches.

    What I don’t understand, is how this puts an end to the matter. Won’t it just kick of a rash of further similar claims, or a demand that all affected clients be given the same compensation.

    • Rob says:

      7 Jul7 July 17:34

      There is no ballpark figure because there has never been a group litigation order of this size.

      BA knows that it potentially owes 500,000 people this money so it can’t be more than a nominal sum, or at least it will be once the lawyers have deducted their fees and 30% profit.

      • Adam says:

        7 Jul7 July 18:28

        PGMBM had a client panel onboard with this. I would have assumed that this panel would have been satisfied with the numbers quoted else they would not have agreed.

        As mentioned above, the solicitors emailed at the end of last year after newspaper speculation that payouts could be in the £6,000-£16,000pp range. They said this was highly unrealistic but expected that £2,000pp was a reasonable expectation.

        Given they are legally obliged to work with the best interests of their clients, it would certainly be disappointing if they have decided to take much less than this as a settlement after advising clients if they’re own expectations of compensation.

        Guess those affected will know within a week or two.

        • Rob says:

          7 Jul7 July 21:22

          All they need to say is that they were not 100% certain of winning (which obviously would always be true) and something was better than potentially nothing ….

• Andrew says:

  6 Jul6 July 08:40

  Oh, I do love a “Non-Disclosure Agreement”.

  Lawyers on here feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but from experience I’ve found that there is nothing to stop a husband, wife, lover or similar disclosing a value that’s been credited to their joint current account.

  A former colleague’s wife, came marching into our office and told us all exactly how much had “mysteriously” been paid into their joint account by our company. There was a massive hoo-hah about it, and threats of the payment being recovered due to the alleged breach of the NDA. Eventually a compensation payment was made to the wife for the poor experience she had as a consequence.

  Although, now I’m thinking about it… Is it a breach of an NDA for individuals to sign up to or remain with services like Nectar Connect where you share your transactional details through openbanking in return for points?

  • Mouse says:

    6 Jul6 July 08:59

    Why did your colleague receive a mysterious payment and why did their wife want to tell you all about it?

    • Andrew says:

      6 Jul6 July 09:47

      The generous and mysterious payment arrived shortly after my former colleague had a brief chat with our company’s lawyer on the Court steps.

      Because he was forbidden from doing so, and she wanted everyone to know who won.

  • Tim says:

    7 Jul7 July 21:13

    You are correct about an NDA. An NDA is just a contract and a contract is only binding on a party to the contract (although in your example the husband could agree in an NDA contract to “precure” the non-disclosure by his wife – then if the wife disclosed he would be in breach of the contract even if she could not be).

    But the threat of contempt of court in this case binds everyone because it is not a contract. Essentially the requirement of secrecy is included in the judges court order. Anyone can be in breach of a court order (although there are jurisdictional issues- remember when Jack Straw’s son was arrested for smoking pot, an English Court issued an injunction (which is a court order) preventing this information being published, but the Scotsman, a newspaper published in Scotland and therefore outside the jurisdiction, published the details.

• Alex says:

  6 Jul6 July 08:44

  I was always suspicious that I was affected by this as I had my BA Amex used fraudulently with my postal address used as the billing address (suggesting my address, cvc, card number all stolen, and it wasn’t stored on many sites!) . But I was never contacted that I was affected, in fact BA confirmed to me I wasn’t

  Is anyone else in a similar position where they suspect they might have been affected but aren’t on BA’s list?

  • Adam says:

    6 Jul6 July 09:13

    My personal circuses with this.

    I had email saying my details had been obtained and then 7-10 days after I had that card used fraudulently for 3 separate purchases at Harrods and 2 more at an online clothing company.

    I managed to contact the card company and the Harrods purchases were stopped prior to shipping but the other two went through.

    I subsequently spent a large amount of time and effort via calls and emails for this to finally be refunded – this was 5 months after the fact. I then had a further battle to get the interest accrued on these purchases refunded as it was increasing while the purchases were “frozen”.

    Ultimately – was I out of pocket? Financially, no. But my time is worth something.

    How much? I let the solicitors decide that and I will accept whatever figure that is.

    I, like many others, see this as a principle that BA needs to understand and that only appears to happen when it hours their wallet.

    For further context. The card used was a card I only used on BA, yet BA themselves contested that although my card was used fraudulently, they did not accept (ie I couldn’t prove) it was as a result of their breach – and is that not that actually bothers me the most.

    • Adam says:

      6 Jul6 July 09:16

      Apologies for some of the typo’s and auto correct.

      Last line should be. “And that’s what actually bothered me the most “

      Shouldn’t have referenced a circus in the first line either but in hindsight, it’s actually not far of the truth.

      • meta says:

        6 Jul6 July 09:24

        Somebody used my BAPP to buy £2k TV at John Lewis, just after midnight on New Year’s. They probably thought I won’t notice it then, but I had a notification appearing on my phone. Called Amex fraud dept. immediately and waited about half an hour. They reissued and the card arrived the following week. I also received a letter from Amex stating that it was possibly linked to BA data breach. I also received a letter from John Lewis stating that somebody tried to collect the TV, but they didn’t have relevant documentation so they stopped them.

    • JDB says:

      6 Jul6 July 09:26

      While you know and I know that your time is worth something, the Court will not really attribute any value to it. The Court is just concerned with putting you back into the original position, not enriching you. Although this breach was a real pain for many people it is difficult to provide that any subsequent use of an involved card did actually relate directly to the breach and usually the card providers/bank will refund you.

      • Adam says:

        6 Jul6 July 09:44

        I agree in part but given I was “made whole” in that I didn’t end up losing financially, anything I get from this settlement in my mind is the compensation for my time and effort. I’m pretty relaxed about these things and the reason I use credit cards (other than points) is that is my money until it goes wrong and then it’s”their” money.

        Ultimately, from the email I received, I will get something and I will not question our quibble over whatever that amount is.

        these guys and girls working on my behalf have convinced BA/a court that my time was with something and I will see what that is in due course.

  • Tracey says:

    6 Jul6 July 09:22

    Yes. Exactly the same. BA Amex fraud, to such an extent that the Amex fraud team couldn’t track down how the fraudster had managed to get certain details. Fraudsters had even obtained my mother’s maiden name.

    • LS says:

      6 Jul6 July 18:27

      This is information you can never put back in the bottle, and your info will forever be available online on the dark web.
      Beware: you may get a CIFAS fraud marker on your account, which will affect your ability to get future credit.
      I have received incessant calls claiming to be HMRC/Lloyds/Royal Mail etc all knowing something about me, and trying to get me to pay/confirm my details etc. They all started around the BA breach time. I can’t show one cause the other. I am *very* careful with my details normally, so quite annoyed.

• Luke says:

  6 Jul6 July 09:03

  As someone who was genuinely impacted by the data breach (my credit card was replaced shortly before a flight due to this, I threw the old card away when the new one arrived, then realised I needed it to check-in for my Iberia flight, had to rebook with the new card at a ridiculous cost).

  I never signed up for the lawsuit as I was never prepared to go to court in the unlikely event I was asked to, plus I received some of the costs back through the CEDR at the time.

  Congrats to those who did sign up.

  • Alex Sm says:

    6 Jul6 July 21:16

    Why on Earth do you need a credit card to check in for a flight??

    • Rui N. says:

      6 Jul6 July 22:31

      Some companies have that on their conditions of carriage, and every now and then check in agents ask for the card use to pay for the reservation. It’s stupid but it’s true!

• TimM says:

  6 Jul6 July 09:34

  I did sign up but was concerned that if I failed to provide all necessary information, I would be liable for fees. I only received automated emails reminding me of this, as if I hadn’t supplied copies of all emails and bookings, which I thought I had.

  In recent weeks, the firm I used were fishing for people who had suffered psychological harm as a result of the data breach and were able to offer a professional opinion for the court. I thought that very far-fetched.

  I think I can say without compromising HfP’s or my position, that I have heard nothing about the latest settlement other than what I have read here.

  Now, if Gove & Hancock had been having an illicit affair, that would be excellent tabloid fodder.

• LS says:

  6 Jul6 July 18:29

  Has anyone received their email telling them how much money they will get?

• Super Secret Stuff says:

  6 Jul6 July 18:52

  This reminds me, my OH had her health details exposed in a hack about a year ago. Still pondering about bringing action against the care provider

• Alex Sm says:

  6 Jul6 July 20:29

  British Airways again acts in a very pathetic way. Like they did with refunds: you will not get anything unless you ask for it. In fact, everyone affected by this breach should be offered compensation regardless of whether they joined this lawsuit or not. They are equally entitled to it. And annual subscription for Experian is not enough I’m afraid, they should have offered Avios or cash

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.