Takeaway: Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 416 (2013), that plaintiffs “cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on . . . hypothetical...more
11/30/2022
/ Article III ,
Class Action ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Cybersecurity ,
Data Breach ,
Data Protection ,
Data Security ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Personal Information ,
Popular ,
Standing
Takeaway: We have written a number of articles about standing issues arising in data breach class actions. See, e.g., Data breach class actions: Third Circuit sets out parameters for Article III injury-in-fact (Oct. 27,...more
Takeaway: We have written a number of articles about the kinds of intangible injuries that confer Article III standing in the data breach and credit reporting contexts. See Data breach class actions: Southern District of...more
Takeaway: We have posted articles addressing the U.S. Supreme Court’s standing-related decision in Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041 (2019), as well as its decision in TransUnion, LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021). In a...more
Takeaway: In a prior article, we reported on the Second Circuit’s decision in McMorris v. Carlos Lopez & Associates, LLC, 995 F.3d 295 (2d Cir. 2021), in which the court, ruling on an issue of first impression, set out a...more
Takeaway: In TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, --- S. Ct. ----, No. 20-297, 2021 WL 2599472 (June 25, 2021), the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the question of “[w]hether either Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages...more
7/1/2021
/ Article III ,
Class Action ,
Class Members ,
Credit Reporting Agencies ,
Credit Reports ,
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
SCOTUS ,
Standing ,
TransUnion ,
TransUnion LLC v Ramirez
Takeaway: Since the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of standing based on allegations of possible future injury in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013), the courts of appeals have addressed this...more
Takeaway: As Judge Diane Wood of the Seventh Circuit recently observed in a putative class action alleging violations of Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), “allegations matter” and “a plaintiff is the...more
Takeaway: Article III standing requires an injury-in-fact. To allege an injury-in-fact, a claimant must show “‘an invasion of a legally protected interest’ that is ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not...more
Takeaway: When a company discovers it has been imposing improper charges, it might proactively seek to remedy the situation by refunding the charges. To avoid litigation, however, the company must consider including...more
Takeaway: In the wake of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), defendants in data breach class actions regularly move to dismiss on standing grounds, arguing the complaint’s allegations do not plausibly allege an...more
Takeaway: The issue of how to treat uninjured class members continues to vex the federal courts. This issue presents both substantive and procedural complexities. Substantively, a class must be defined in objective terms, so...more
Takeaway: “Most courts to have considered the issue agree . . . that consumer plaintiffs cannot pursue injunctive relief if they are already aware of the alleged deceptive practice.” Ulrich v. Probalance, Inc., No. 16 C...more
Takeaway: In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (“Spokeo II”), the Supreme Court ruled that not every statutory violation gives rise to a concrete injury for standing purposes. An inaccurate report of a person’s...more
Takeaway: The decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), where the U.S. Supreme Court evaluated Article III standing in the context of a federal statutory violation, continues to generate controversy. Since...more
On May 16, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Spokeo v. Robins, No. 13-1339, which presented the question of whether a plaintiff has standing in federal court to assert a claim where the only...more