Spokeo

News & Analysis as of

Spokeo Can't Help Bank Avoid $6.2M Settlement

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

Consumer Financial Services Newsletter - August 2016

Seventh Circuit Rules: Filing a Proof of Claim for Old Debt Is Okay — Circuits Split - Owens et al. v. LVNV Funding LLC et al., Nos. 15-2044, 15-2082, 15-2109 (7th Cir. Aug.10, 2016) - In Owens v. LVNV Funding LLC,...more

Week in Review: Appellate Court Upholds Damages-Based Challenge to Predominance and More

This week’s recap examines a recent appellate ruling that provides a nice roadmap for arguing a plaintiff’s theory of damages cannot satisfy Rule 23’s predominance requirement, as well as another district court’s efforts to...more

Court Finds Spokeo Closes Door on TCPA Claim

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

Supreme Court’s Spokeo Decision Hasn’t Resolved Issues of Concreteness

In a much-anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled on a critical question in privacy and consumer class-action litigation — whether plaintiffs who may have suffered no actual injury beyond an alleged...more

Supreme Court’s Spokeo Decision Leaves Questions Unresolved

On May 16, the Supreme Court issued its Spokeo v. Robins decision. Spokeo was a closely-watched case, as it had the potential to substantially limit federal court jurisdiction in cases where plaintiffs sued for violations of...more

Controversial New Jersey Consumer Protection Law Creates a Potential “Gotcha” for E-Commerce Companies

If your company is involved in selling products or services to consumers in New Jersey over the web or through mobile apps, you’ll want to read this blog post....more

District Court Holds Professional Plaintiff Lacks Article III Standing to Bring TCPA Action Under Supreme Court’s Spokeo, Inc. v....

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (U.S. May 16, 2016), it is clear that “Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation,” such that a...more

Advertising Law - June 2016 #4

FTC Shuts Down Scam Touting Aid for Disabled Individuals - A telemarketer faces a Federal Trade Commission ban on claims that the sales of products would help disabled individuals....more

Spokeo Starting To Impact Class Certification Decisions — Stay Tuned

We are often asked what we see as the most promising avenues for class action defense arising from the Supreme Court’s Spokeo decision. Our answer is that even if courts, post-Spokeo, give Congress wide latitude to define a...more

Generalized Products Liability Claims Not Viable Post-Spokeo

The Supreme Court case Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins reaffirmed and clarified the requirements necessary for plaintiffs to establish standing. As evidenced by the recent First Circuit case Hochendoner v. Genzyme Corp., the analysis...more

Supreme Court’s Spokeo Decision Strengthens Standing Defense For Employers In FCRA And Other Statutory Class Actions

In an important victory for employers, the Supreme Court in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins held that a plaintiff does not have Article III standing to sue in federal court under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and other federal...more

Spokeo – Half a Loaf, Maybe More, from the Supreme Court

We can’t stand no-injury class actions – those that allege only “I got exactly what the product I paid for, and wasn’t hurt, but for X reason I paid ‘too much’ for it.” Such litigation is a waste of time and money, and is...more

Supreme Court Vacates Ninth Circuit Decision in Spokeo, Remands for Analysis of Concrete Harms

On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Spokeo v. Robins, which posed the question of whether Article III standing requires a plaintiff to have a concrete injury when alleging a statutory violation under the...more

The Supreme Court - May 2016 #2

The Supreme Court of the United States issued decisions in six cases today: Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339: The Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 (“FCRA”) imposes a number of requirements regarding the creation and...more

The Supreme Court Sends Spokeo Back

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided one of the Term’s most closely watched cases: Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. The 6-2 decision, while far from sweeping, creates a hurdle for plaintiffs in “no-injury” class actions....more

Standing Together to a Point: Spokeo Holding Reflects Broad Supreme Court Agreement on Standing Rules in Actions Raising Statutory...

Amid the meteoric rise of statutory damage class action filings, the Supreme Court laid out ground rules on Monday for when a case meets both components of the injury-in-fact requirements of Article III. In a 6-2 opinion...more

Thoughts on Supreme Court Oral Argument in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (SCOTUSBlog page). The question presented is “Whether Congress may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete...more

Reply Brief filed in Spokeo v. Robins – Oral Argument next on Nov. 2

In its reply brief in Spokeo v. Robins, petitioner Spokeo comes out of the gate with the consequential argument that for Robins to prevail, the Supreme Court must accept his position that every violation of a statutory right...more

CFPB files amicus brief in U.S. Supreme Court Article III standing case

The CFPB, together with the DOJ, has filed a second amicus brief in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court in which the issue is whether a plaintiff who cannot show any actual harm from a...more

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins: Petitioner Argues If There Is No Actual Injury-in-Fact, Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Sue

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari on April 27, 2015 in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339, the Petitioner has weighed in with their brief. As you may recall, the question before the Court has the...more

Industry Players Weigh In on Spokeo

A few months ago, we reviewed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, and the implications that a ruling in the case will have on the landscape of litigation under privacy...more

Advertising Law - August 2015

Internet Cafes Lose a Bet With the California Supreme Court - In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court upheld an injunction against the operators of Internet cafes that offered “sweepstakes” games the Court...more

Eighth Circuit: Purpose, Not Content, Determines TCPA Coverage of Calls as “Telemarketing”

Phone calls made to promote a movie constituted “telemarketing” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) even though the two prerecorded messages left on the plaintiffs’ home phone line made no reference to the...more

Insights from DRI Class Action Seminar 2015 – Part 2

Andrew Pincus, lead counsel in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (to be decided by the Supreme Court next Term, see my May 1, 2015 blog post), spoke on this subject. The question presented is whether a federal statute can confer...more

31 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×