Charlotte-based manufacturing company Honeywell faces legal challenges as three separate class-action lawsuits were filed against it in September. These lawsuits allege that Honeywell failed to adequately protect customers’ personal information from cybercriminals and neglected to inform affected individuals when their data was compromised.
The lawsuits assert that Honeywell stored a substantial amount of sensitive personal information on its network, including Social Security numbers, passport details, driver’s license information, and financial account numbers. According to the allegations, this data was left vulnerable to exploitation during a large-scale cyberattack, potentially exposing the personal information of approximately 118,379 individuals as of May 2023.
One of the plaintiffs, Lynne Curran, initiated a class-action lawsuit on September 19 in the Western District of North Carolina. Curran claims that Honeywell’s failure to safeguard her information exposed her to potential fraud by malicious third parties seeking to capitalize on the data breach. In response to the cyberattack, Curran took precautionary measures such as exploring credit monitoring and identity theft insurance options and seeking legal counsel. David M. Wilkerson now represents her from the Van Winkle Law Firm in the federal case.
The complaint filed by Curran’s attorney alleges that Honeywell deliberately neglected its responsibilities towards Curran and other class members by failing to implement sufficient security measures to protect their personally identifiable information (PII). It also accuses the company of not taking necessary steps to prevent unauthorized data disclosure and disregarding established protocols for data encryption, even for internal use.
A second class-action lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, focuses on Honeywell’s handling of the data breach. Attorneys representing Debbie Jefferson contend that Honeywell failed to promptly inform her and other affected individuals about the cyberattack, waiting until September 14 to disclose the breach despite knowing it as early as June. Jefferson’s legal team, from Schehr Law and Srourian Law, requests a jury trial, asserting that Honeywell’s actions caused her anxiety and uncertainty regarding the extent of the compromised personal information.
A third complaint was filed in federal court on September 26 by attorneys representing Catherine Dunn and Dave Valentine. This lawsuit alleges that Honeywell and its employees inadequately monitored and implemented security practices for their computer network and systems housing private information. The complaint argues that had Honeywell exercised proper network monitoring, they would have detected the breach sooner.
