Worth a read, a case involving Starbucks, a stolen laptop and ID Theft. Hollow win for the Plaintiff.
The Ninth Circuit noted that under Washington law, "actual loss or damage is an essential element" of a negligence claim. The Court noted that plaintiffs waived the argument that "anxiety constitutes actionable injury.
Find the decision here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/45307040/Krottner-v-Starbucks-No-09-35823-9th-Cir-Dec-14-2010-Opinion
"Although we have not previously determined whether an increased risk of identity theft constitutes an injury-in-fact, we have addressed future harm in other contexts, holding that “the possibility of future injury may be sufficient to confer standing on plaintiffs; threatened injury constitutes ‘injury in fact.’ ” Cent. Delta Water Agency, 306 F.3d at 947. More specifically, [a] plaintiff may allege a future injury in order to comply with [the injury-in-fact] requirement, but only if he or she “is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of the challenged . . . conduct and the injury or threat of injury is both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical."