Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. Computing
  3. Business
  4. News

Adobe agrees to pay $1 million across 15 states after being hacked in 2013

Add as a preferred source on Google

Adobe has been fined just $1 million for its massive 2013 hack that compromised the information of some 38 million users.

The money will be paid out to around 500,000 people in 15 states as part of the “multistate agreement” reached with Adobe. The 15 states that participated in the investigation and agreement were: Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.

Recommended Videos

“The settlement resolves an investigation into the 2013 data breach of certain Adobe servers, including servers containing the personal information of approximately 552,000 residents of the participating states,” said the North Carolina attorney general’s office in its announcement.

The attackers behind the hack in 2013 managed to compromise Adobe’s server and stole encrypted customer data, which included payment card details, names, email addresses, and usernames.

As part of the agreement and fine, Adobe was ordered to no longer store payment data on public-facing servers and it must put new security training practices in place for employees. These policies will have to be reviewed twice a year.

The 15-state investigation claimed Adobe’s data breach was “foreseeable” and it failed to take the necessary steps to protect customers, according to Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. “Adobe put consumers’ personal data at risk of being compromised by a data breach, and that is unacceptable. This settlement will put in place important new practices to ensure that a breach like this does not happen again,” she said in a statement.

Despite these hefty indictments against Adobe, the fine of $1 million may ring a little hollow for some users. Adobe had previously settled a similar case in California where it settled for an undisclosed amount and $1.1 million in legal fees.

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper said that “businesses and government must do more to protect [customer data].” Large fines have been seen as a deterrent for some companies but $1 million will not make much of a dent in Adobe’s bottom line.

On the other hand, in the European Union, the General Data Protection Resolution (GDPR) will be coming into effect in 2018. If Adobe suffered a breach like this with Europeans’ data, it would be facing a fine of up to four percent of its annual global turnover. Last we checked, Adobe’s previous quarterly earnings were $1.4 billion.

Jonathan Keane
Jonathan is a freelance technology journalist living in Dublin, Ireland. He's previously written for publications and sites…
Google’s new Magic Pointer Play Store listing reveals a Gemini shortcut built for Googlebooks
The unannounced app turns the cursor into a contextual AI tool for search, image creation, and shopping
Plant, Text, Business Card

Google has quietly published a new Play Store listing for Magic Pointer, an unannounced app built for Googlebooks. Updated on July 10, the app turns the cursor into a Gemini shortcut that can act on whatever a user selects on screen.

Magic Pointer can send an image to Lens, generate a related image, or surface a shopping action without forcing users to open a separate chatbot. Regular Android devices currently show as incompatible, so the listing offers an early preview rather than a broad release.

Read more
You can stop using AI, but this new report says you probably can’t escape it
A UK survey found that most people feel AI exposure is unavoidable, raising harder questions about consent, privacy, and whether opting out is still realistic
AI Chatbots

More people are trying to use less AI, but avoiding it altogether may already be impossible.

A survey of 2,055 UK adults found that 42% deliberately limit how much AI they use. Another 70% said avoiding AI exposure would be difficult or impossible, even when they actively wanted less of it.

Read more
The face on an AI interviewer may matter as much as the decision it makes
Researchers found that race and gender matching changed how fairly rejected applicants viewed an automated interview, even though everyone received the same outcome
File, Computer Hardware, Electronics

An AI hiring system can treat every applicant the same and still leave some people feeling targeted. Researchers found that rejected candidates judged an automated interview differently depending on the race and gender of the avatar delivering the result.

Around 220 participants completed a simulated interview for a fictional customer support role with one of four photorealistic AI avatars. Everyone was rejected, yet perceptions of fairness shifted with the interviewer’s appearance. An algorithm audit could miss that reaction because candidates don’t experience the system as raw code. They experience a face asking questions and judging their answers.

Read more