own, to establish standing in the absence of “some particularized example of their application in this case” (internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted)); In re Jetblue Airways Corp. Privacy Litig., 379 F.Supp.2d 299, 327 (E.D.N.Y.2005) (rejecting plaintiffs’ attempt to recover the loss of the economic value of their personal information as a contract damage where airline disclosed their personal data to a third-party data mining company in violation of airline’s privacy policy); In re Doubleclick, Inc. Privacy Litig., 154 F.Supp.2d 497, 525 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (rejecting argument that the economic value of the collection of demographic consumer data is an economic loss to the individual consumer); but see Krottner v. Starbucks Corp., 628 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); Doe 1 v. AOL LLC, 719 F.Supp.2d 1102, 1109-11
holding that plaintiffs alleged a credible threat of real and immediate harm stemming from the theft of a laptop containing their unencrypted personal data which included their names addresses and social security numbers holding that plaintiffs social security numbers are not relevant to determining liability for unpaid wages in a suit under the flsa and state law holding that in a prosecution against a physician for conspiracy to commit abortion records showing the names addresses and telephone numbers of patients did not fall within the patientphysician privilege holding that adult entertainers had established a constitutional privacy interest by offering proof that disclosing their names and current and past residential addresses would pose serious potential risks to their physical safety and wellbeing holding that plaintiffs were injured by defendants collection and publication of highly sensitive personal information including credit card numbers social security numbers financial account numbers and information regarding plaintiffs personal issues including sexuality mental illness alcoholism incest rape and domestic violence