By Cinthia Granados Motley, Laurie Kamaiko and Carol Gerner (August 31, 2017, 12:40 PM EDT) -- With daily headlines of data breaches, it is inevitable that class action litigation will often follow. When it does, one of the first lines of defense is a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing which addresses a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction. The second line of defense is generally a Rule 12(b)(6) motion which is a challenge to the merits of a plaintiffs' claim. The U.S. Supreme Court in recent decisions, first in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S. Ct.1138 (2013), followed by Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), articulated the following standard with regard to Article III standing which lower courts have been grappling with when it comes to victims of data breaches. The burden on the plaintiffs is to establish that they have personally suffered (1) injury in fact that is concrete, particularized and actual or imminent; (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant; and (3) is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision....