AGG Talks: Background Screening - A Refresher on Responding to Consumer File Requests under Section 609 of the FCRA
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
Podcast: Texas v. United States of America
On August 8, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit again weighed in on Article III standing. Unlike its previous ventures into standing, however, it did so this time in the context of the Illinois...more
On March 20, 2019, in Frank v. Gaos, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), the United States Supreme Court sidestepped a novel question regarding a cy pres class action settlement, instead remanding the case back to the lower courts with...more
On March 25, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dealt another setback to plaintiffs trying to establish Article III standing to assert a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681,...more
On September 14, 2016, defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) moved for summary judgment on plaintiff Tina Bellino’s putative class action complaint, which alleges that Chase violated New York state law by presenting...more
On July 13, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment against a plaintiff that lacked Article III standing to assert a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §...more
In this month's edition of our Privacy & Cybersecurity Update, we examine the Identity Theft Research Center's findings on data breaches in 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court's denial of certiorari that leaves in place the circuit...more
On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Thomas Robins’ allegations were sufficient to establish standing in his Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) suit against Spokeo...more
On August 15, 2017, the Ninth Circuit delivered the latest episode in the Robins v. Spokeo saga, reaffirming on remand from the Supreme Court that plaintiff Robins had alleged an injury in fact sufficient for Article III...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
The U.S. Supreme Court held in its 2016 Spokeo decision that for a plaintiff to have standing to assert a claim based on a statutory violation that the plaintiff must have suffered real—and not just legal— harm. Spokeo...more
On August 15, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued another opinion in the saga of Robins v. Spokeo, Inc.—a case dealing with the question of what violations of a federal statute are sufficient to...more
Dear Retail Clients and Friends, Many of you are likely familiar with the US Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. On the one-year anniversary of Spokeo, data shows that retailers’ chances of success in...more
Takeaway: In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), federal courts and litigants have grappled not only with what constitutes an actionable injury sufficient to confer...more
Addressing the legal standard for demonstrating standing in an appeal from a final agency decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that petitioners must have Article III standing to appeal a Patent...more
Consumer class action suits continue to be a growing source of concern to marketers and income for plaintiffs’ law firms. This webinar will provide an update on recent consumer class action cases across a range of industries...more
Federal courts have varied widely in their interpretation of standing for plaintiffs in consumer protection class actions since last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Spokeo v. Robins , __ U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (May 16,...more
On January 30, 2017, in Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, No. 14-55980, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) plaintiff had sufficiently alleged an Article III...more
Early scorecards in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins all note high marks in the plaintiffs’ column, especially at the motion to dismiss stage. Emboldened by these decisions,...more
Courts Are Giving "Standing" Teeth After Spokeo - Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Spokeo, Inc., v. Robins, courts have further clarified and interpreted the Spokeo decision. Spokeo held that (i) in order to...more
The Eleventh Circuit recently held in Nicklaw v. CitiMortgage, Inc.(No. 15-14216) that a plaintiff lacks standing to sue a creditor where the plaintiff merely alleges that the creditor failed to timely record a mortgage...more
In a positive development for financial institutions and other businesses looking to communicate with customers via phone, a federal district court dismissed a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) suit based on the...more
In the wake of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (May 16, 2016), the Supreme Court decision that had the chance to be legendary, but instead settled for punting back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, we are left...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), represents a critical turning point in class-action litigation. At issue in Spokeo was whether Congress may confer Article III...more
Invoking the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Spokeo v. Robins, a federal court in New York held that a bank remained on the hook for a $6.2 million class action settlement. What happened - Plaintiffs were...more
A federal district judge has paved the way to a successful defense for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claims on standing grounds post-Spokeo. In Romero v. Department Stores National Bank, et al., No. 15-CV-193 (S.D....more