lefigaro.fr
M&S Estimates £300 Million Loss from Cyberattack
A cyberattack on Marks & Spencer is expected to cost the British retailer £300 million in lost operating profit for the 2025-2026 fiscal year, affecting online sales, contactless payments, and product availability until July, according to a company statement.
- What measures is M&S taking to mitigate the impact of the cyberattack and what is the current status of the attack?
- The cyberattack caused disruptions to M&S's online sales and in-store operations, resulting in reduced product availability and substantial losses. This highlights the vulnerability of large retailers to cyberattacks and the significant financial consequences that can arise.
- What broader implications does this cyberattack have for the retail industry concerning data security and operational resilience?
- M&S anticipates the disruption will continue until July, impacting its 2025-2026 operating profit. The incident underscores the growing need for robust cybersecurity measures within the retail sector to mitigate similar risks and financial losses in the future. The attack also impacted customer data, although payment details and passwords were not compromised.
- What is the estimated financial impact of the cyberattack on Marks & Spencer's operating profit, and what key operations were affected?
- Marks & Spencer (M&S), a British retailer, estimates a £300 million impact on its operating profit due to a cyberattack that started in mid-April and is expected to last until July. The attack affected online sales, contactless payments, and product availability, significantly impacting food and clothing sales.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the story primarily through the lens of the financial impact on M&S, emphasizing the £300 million estimated loss. While this is a significant aspect, the narrative prioritizes the financial repercussions over the broader implications for customer data security and operational disruptions. The headline (if there was one) likely emphasized the financial impact, further reinforcing this framing.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, although the description of the cyberattack as an "accident of course" could be considered downplaying the severity of the situation. A more neutral description would be to simply state the facts of the impact without subjective interpretation.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the financial impact of the cyberattack on Marks & Spencer, but omits discussion of the potential long-term effects on customer trust and the company's brand reputation. While the article mentions the theft of some personal data, it doesn't delve into the specifics of what data was stolen or the potential risks to customers. The impact on employees is also not addressed. Given the scale of the attack and the disruption caused, a more comprehensive analysis of these broader consequences would be beneficial. The mention of similar attacks on Co-op and Harrods is brief and lacks detail, limiting the reader's ability to draw comparisons or understand the wider context of the cybersecurity threat.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic view of the situation, portraying the cyberattack as a mere "accident of course." This framing minimizes the seriousness of the security breach and the potential for long-term damage. It also doesn't consider alternative explanations or contributing factors to the attack.
Sustainable Development Goals
The cyberattack on Marks & Spencer significantly impacted its operational profits, resulting in an estimated £300 million loss. This negatively affects economic growth and the stability of jobs within the company and its supply chain. The disruption also affected sales, impacting the company's overall economic performance and potentially affecting employee livelihoods.