Law360, New York (July 27, 2015, 5:53 PM EDT) -- Last week, in Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, the Seventh Circuit reinstated a class action against Neiman Marcus stemming from a 2013 data breach. In so doing, it was the first court of appeals to find that the data breach plaintiffs' actual injuries, future injuries and attendant mitigation costs were sufficient to adequately plead Article III standing. So why did the Seventh Circuit find standing here when the vast majority of data breach cases have been dismissed on standing grounds? Comparing the Neiman Marcus case to other recent decisions provides some guidance, but it also raises concerns that a company's data breach response and remedial measures may be used against it as evidence of harm....