The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland found that Fardoes Khan lacked Article III standing to sue the Children’s National Health System (CNHS) after a data breach because she did not point to any examples of fraudulent activity arising from the breach or any evidence that the hackers perpetrated the breach for the purposes of using the personal information for identity fraud.   The court remanded the case to state court ‒ which is where Khan first filed the case before CNHS removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.  It’s difficult to see what CNHS gained by its strategy of removing to federal court only to then argue that the federal court lacked diversity, other than to run up the costs incurred by plaintiff’s counsel (while increasing its own legal fees in the process).  But the court’s decision provides some clarity around when the threat of future harm may suffice to establish standing.