Final answer:
The statement is generally true, as courts in jurisdictions with a broad view of injury-in-fact have allowed the threat of future harm from a data breach to establish standing. This allows individuals to pursue legal action in anticipation of harm such as identity or financial theft resulting from a data breach.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement, 'A credible threat of increased risk of future harm from a data breach is enough to find an injury-in-fact for purposes of Article III standing in jurisdictions that view injury-in-fact broadly' is generally true. Courts in these jurisdictions have found that the threat of harm from a data breach can constitute an injury-in-fact, which is necessary for Article III standing. This allows individuals to have a cause of action in a court of law. For example, if personal information is compromised as a result of a data breach, and there's a credible threat that this may lead to identity theft or financial harm in the future, the individual whose data has been breached may be found to have an injury-in-fact.
Standing based on the threat of future harm does not mean that harm needs to be immediate or already realized. It simply must be a credible threat leading to an increased risk. This view is critical for enabling people to take action against entities responsible for data breaches before actual harm, like financial theft or identity theft, occurs. It's relevant in today's digital age, where online privacy and security are of significant concern, as seen in the cases of major breaches at companies like Target and JP Morgan.