On April 22, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit held in Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc. that a plaintiff who claimed to have suffered a heightened risk of identity theft when the defendant printed a receipt containing too many digits of his credit card number suffered a concrete injury in fact, creating a circuit split on what type of injury a plaintiff must allege to establish standing to sue for a violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”).  The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion is also notable for holding that a class member who objects to a non-mandatory class settlement has standing to appeal an order approving the settlement.

• In Muransky, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s approval of a class-action settlement, rejecting an objector’s argument that the named plaintiff lacked Article III standing to pursue a FACTA claim against the chocolatier.
• The court held that a heightened risk of identity theft constituted a concrete injury in this case because, by enacting FACTA, Congress elevated the risk of identity theft to the status of a concrete harm.  
• Muransky reaches the opposite result the Third Circuit reached in Kamal v. J. Crew Group, Inc., 918 F.3d 102 (3d Cir. 2019), which held that actual identity theft was required for a plaintiff to have standing to bring a FACTA claim.  The Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning is also arguably at odds with opinions issued by the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.
• Muransky is also significant for confirming that class members who object to a non-mandatory Rule 23(b)(3) settlement have standing to appeal because they are bound by the settlement if they do not opt out.  In reaching this conclusion, the Eleventh Circuit joined the First, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits.
• Read the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion here.  Read the Third Circuit’s opinion in Kamal here.