Rutter’s Data Breach Class Action Investigation

Rutter’s Data Breach Class Action Investigation

Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP is investigating a potential data breach class action lawsuit against convenience store retailer, Rutter’s, following recent news that it detected a security breach on its payment card processors in its stores and gas pumps.

Rutter’s is a chain of convenience stores and gas stations, with 72 locations in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Maryland. On February 14, 2020, Rutter’s issued a statement notifying consumers of the breach, which stated in pertinent part:

“On January 14, 2020, the investigation identified evidence indicating that an unauthorized actor may have accessed payment card data from cards used on point-of-sale (POS) devices at some fuel pumps and inside some of our convenience stores through malware installed on the payment processing systems. The malware searched for track data (which sometimes has the cardholder name in addition to card number, expiration date, and internal verification code) read from a payment card as it was being routed through the payment processing systems….”

Rutter’s reported that the breach lasted nearly eight months, from October 1, 2018 through May 29, 2019, but at least one location was breached as early as August 30, 2018, and nine additional locations may have been breached as early as September 20, 2018. Rutter’s stated that it will send emails and letters to consumers who may have been impacted.

If you used a debit or credit card at a Rutter’s store or gas pump, and think your personal financial information was compromised by this recent data breach, please contact the lawyers listed on this page.

(*) Indicates required field: When communicating with us through this site or otherwise in connection with a matter for which we do not already represent you, your communication may not be treated as privileged or confidential, and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and our Firm.

Attorneys for this case:

Benjamin F. Johns
Mark B. DeSanto