CALL 916-777-7777
Youtube Facebook-f X-twitter Linkedin-in

Columbia University Data Breach

Posted on behalf of Arnold Law Firm in

NOTICE: If you received a NOTICE OF DATA BREACH letter from Columbia University, contact the Arnold Law Firm at (916) 777-7777 to discuss your legal options, or submit a confidential Case Evaluation form here.

​​​​On August 7, 2025, Columbia University (“Columbia”) disclosed a significant cybersecurity incident (the “Data Breach”) in breach notification filings with Attorneys General’s Offices in Maine and California. The breach was first detected on June 24, 2025, after a technical outage disrupted various university systems. The investigation determined that, on or about May 16, 2025, an unauthorized actor accessed Columbia’s network and exfiltrated files. The Data Breach affected approximately 868,969 individuals, including current students, former students, applicants, and some employees. Recently, Columbia has begun notifying affected individuals, offering two years of complimentary credit monitoring and identity protection services through Kroll. If you received a data breach notification letter from Columbia, it indicates that you were affected by the data breach. ​ Founded in 1754 and located in New York City, Columbia University is an Ivy League research institution with an annual budget exceeding $6.6 billion, more than 20,000 employees, approximately 4,700 academic staff, and over 35,000 students across 19 colleges, programs, and schools. 

Columbia University Data BreachWHAT INFORMATION IS INVOLVED IN THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY DATA BREACH?

The type of compromised information included:
  • Name​s,
  • Dates of birth,
  • Social Security numbers,
  • Contact information,
  • Demographic data 
  • Academic history and admissions records,
  • Financial aid-related information
  • Insurance-related information and certain health information.
This information is called your Personally Identifiable Information (“PII”). It tells others about you and is considered part of your identity. Businesses are required to secure this information or risk facing statutory penalties, among other legal penalties. Stolen PII can be used by identity thieves to engage in fraudulent activity using your identity.  Personal medical information (a specific type of PII) is referred to as Protected Health Information (“PHI”). It is protected under both state and federal law. Healthcare providers and other businesses who handle PHI are required to protect that information. Like stolen PII, stolen PHI can be used by identity thieves to engage in fraudulent activity using your identity. Quite often, PII and PHI are used in conjunction by hackers. The best way to protect yourself after a data breach is to sign up for credit and identity protection services as soon as possible.  NOTICE: If you received a NOTICE OF DATA BREACH letter from Columbia University, contact the Arnold Law Firm at (916) 777-7777 to discuss your legal options, or submit a confidential Case Evaluation form here.

Settlement - $3,767,000

Truck Accident

A 20-year-old man who had been married for just 12 days left home on his way to work. He was driving on Pleasant Grove Road in Sutter County in the early morning when he came upon a slow-moving truck. As he pulled out to pass the truck, the truck driver turned left in front of him. The young man attempted to steer back into his lane but his vehicle struck an un-flagged piece of metal extending from the back of the truck. He died in the resulting crash.

Expert witnesses brought in by the Arnold Law Firm proved that the truck, owned and operated by a hauling firm, should never have been on the highway that morning. Specifically, the rear and side turn signals did not work and the rear-view mirror was in a poor state of adjustment at the time of the collision. As a result, the driver, who had failed to properly inspect the vehicle before setting out that morning, couldn’t see the young man’s vehicle as it attempted to pass.

The poor condition of the truck, its lack of maintenance and the manner in which it was operated were found to be substantial factors in causing the collision that killed the young man. The testimony also established that the man had been making a lawful pass at the lawful speed limit and acted reasonably when he attempted to avoid the collision.

The man’s 20-year-old widow was awarded $3,767,000.77, his parents were awarded $185,131 and the family was reimbursed $11,899 in funeral expenses. Though money is a poor substitute for a young man’s life, this verdict demonstrates that drivers who endanger the lives of others will be held accountable for their actions.