In Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC,No. 14-3122 (7th Cir. July 20, 2015), plaintiffs brought a purported class action against Neiman Marcus for claims arising out of the disclosure of consumer information as a result of an attack by computer hackers.  The district court dismissed the claim and the Seventh Circuit reversed.  The court found the plaintiffs possessed standing to bring their action on two grounds.  First, the court recognized that allegations of future harm can establish Article III standing if that harm is impending. The court held that it was impending inasmuch as class members faced identifiable costs associated with the process of resolving the data breach.  This, it was plausible to infer that plaintiffs had shown a substantial risk of future harm.  Second, the court recognized that plaintiffs had already lost time and money protecting themselves against future identity theft and fraudulent charges resulting from the prior breach.  While mitigation expenses do not qualify as actual injuries where the harm is not imminent, in this case plaintiffs had alleged sufficient imminent harm.  While not deciding two other standing arguments, the court stated that it was “dubious” that standing could be based on the allegation that plaintiffs had overpaid for their products or that the data breach infringed plaintiffs’ right to personal information.