cases from other jurisdictions that plaintiffs cite: Pisciotta v. Old National Bancorp, 499 F.3d 629, 634 (7th Cir.2007), and Krottner v. Starbucks Corp., 628 F.3d 1139, 1142-43 (9th Cir.2010). The Courts of Appeals for the Seventh and Ninth Circuits concluded that plaintiffs need not come forward with evidence that their data has actually been misused in order to establish injury in fact. And although they articulated a slightly different standard than the one articulated by the court of appeals in this jurisdiction, they still acknowledged that the plaintiff must show “a threat of future harm or ... an act which harms the plaintiff only by increasing the risk of future harm that the plaintiff would have otherwise faced.” Pisciotta, 499 F.3d at 634; see also Krottner, 628 F.3d at 1143 (<HOLDING>) (citations and internal quotation marks
holding that alien must show that he faces a particularized threat of persecution holding that a plaintiff meets the injuryinfact requirement for standing if he faces a credible threat of harm and that harm is both real and immediate not conjectural or hypothetical holding that a threat to harm another person is a crime of violence recognizing that a case is ripe for determination if injury has occurred or is likely to occur the threat of harm must be direct and immediate rather than conjectural hypothetical or remote holding that the threat of irreparable harm must be immediate