Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): collection industry considers consumer information valuable was insufficient to establish standing where he failed to allege what personal information of his was purportedly collected by a third party and how such collection deprived him of the economic value of his data); In re iPhone Application, 2011 WL 4403963, at *5-6 (plaintiffs’ mere “general allegations” about the mobile device market for apps and about abstract concepts such as “lost opportunity costs” and “value-for-value exchanges” were insufficient to establish a concrete theory of injury); Specific Media, 2011 WL 1661532, at *4-6 (plaintiffs’ reference to “academic articles concerning the nature of Internet business models driven by consumers’ willingness to supply data about themselves” was insufficient, on N.D.Cal.2010) (<HOLDING>). While instructive, all of these cases are 
 Holding statements: (A) 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 (B) holding that the amount of loss should include sales tax and shipping costs on computer equipment bought by stolen credit card numbers (C) holding that although the social security number in the information and the social security numbers in the previous convictions did not match the rest of the identifying information  the first and last name and date of birth  did match and was sufficient to establish the defendants identity particularly in light of the fact that the defendant did not claim he was not the individual named in the previous convictions (D) 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 (E) holding that plaintiffs social security numbers are not relevant to determining liability for unpaid wages in a suit under the flsa and state law
Output (English): holding that although the social security number in the information and the social security numbers in the previous convictions did not match the rest of the identifying information  the first and last name and date of birth  did match and was sufficient to establish the defendants identity particularly in light of the fact that the defendant did not claim he was not the individual named in the previous convictions