The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has held, in In re: Sony Gaming Networks and Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, that the threat of future harm to Sony PlayStation users from last year’s hack of Sony’s network was sufficient to establish Article III standing to sue. The court’s decision is consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s relatively expansive view of standing based on potential future harm, but deepens the split among the courts, since many courts (including the Third Circuit, in Reilly v. Ceridian Corp.) have rejected standing based on similar allegations. However, the court concluded that the threat of future harm was insufficient to state a negligence claim under California law. Perhaps even more importantly, the court found that the negligence claim was also barred by the “economic loss doctrine,” which precludes negligence claims where the only loss alleged is economic rather than physical harm, absent some “special relationship” between the parties. This means negligence claims would fail even if plaintiffs can allege some present harm. The court therefore dismissed the negligence claim, but with leave to amend.