A class action settlement has been reached involving M.I. Industries Inc., which does business as Instinct Pet Food, after the company reported a cybersecurity incident discovered in October 2024 that may have exposed current and former employees’ personally identifiable information (PII). Employee records can be especially sensitive because they often include data such as Social Security numbers, financial details, and other identifiers that are valuable for identity theft. Under the proposed settlement, eligible U.S. employees who received a breach notice can choose benefits such as reimbursement for documented losses (up to $1,000), compensation for time spent responding to the breach (capped within that $1,000), “extraordinary” documented losses (up to $3,500), two years of three-bureau credit monitoring with identity theft insurance, or an alternative $60 cash payment, with key deadlines running from December 2025 (opt-out) through January 2026 (claims and final approval hearing). The lawsuit was filed because plaintiffs alleged the breach resulted from inadequate cybersecurity safeguards, a common theory in data-breach litigation that argues companies have a duty to reasonably protect the sensitive information they collect and store. While Instinct Pet Food denies wrongdoing, settling can limit legal risk and costs while providing concrete relief to affected workers—especially important because the financial harm from identity theft can be delayed and difficult to trace back to a single incident. The structure of the settlement—tiered reimbursement, proof requirements for higher-dollar claims, and credit monitoring—reflects how courts and parties often try to balance compensation for real losses with the challenge of proving future risk. This case fits into a broader wave of employee and consumer data-breach class actions across many industries, where plaintiffs increasingly scrutinize security practices, incident response, and whether organizations followed widely accepted cybersecurity frameworks and internal policies. Although the U.S. lacks a single comprehensive federal data-privacy law, companies operate under a patchwork of state data-breach notification statutes and regulator expectations that emphasize “reasonable security,” and employers must also consider obligations tied to HR recordkeeping and vendor management. As similar suits have shown, even without an admission of fault, settlements like this can pressure organizations to strengthen controls such as access management, monitoring, encryption, and retention limits because employee datasets are high-value targets and breaches can create long-tail costs for both workers and the business