On June 25, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Court”) issued a decision in TransUnion v. Ramirez (“TransUnion”), providing much-needed clarity on the types of injuries required to assert statutory privacy claims in federal...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
LA-based commercial litigator Arsen Kourinian has provided us with some timely notes from last week’s consumer finance litigation conference in Chicago: - On July 16 and 17, 2018, the American Conference Institute (ACI)...more
With the year ending, and McGuireWoods’s webinar next week on class actions’ Hot Issues of 2017 approaching, this seems like a good time to take note of a few of the trends we have seen arising in class actions over the last...more
Ninth Circuit Finds in Spokeo Remand That Certain Statutory Violations Can Satisfy Article III’s Standing Requirement - In a highly anticipated decision, the Ninth Circuit ruled that violations of the Fair Credit Reporting...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
We recently wrote about a decision in Attias v. CareFirst, Inc., holding that a class of plaintiffs whose information was compromised in a cyberattack had sufficiently demonstrated standing to survive a motion to dismiss. The...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
In May 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on whether the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") created a right confering Article III standing for plaintiffs in consumer litigation. The decision, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct....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
On December 28, 2016, the New York Department of Financial Services ("DFS") released a revised version of a proposed regulation that would require banks, insurance companies, and other financial services institutions...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
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
The ripple effects persist as lower courts continue to apply the Supreme Court’s holding in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016), which established a new “standing,” threshold for plaintiffs seeking to assert...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
In the wake of the decision from the Supreme Court in the United States on Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, courts are grappling with how to apply the injury requirement for standing under Article III to “no-injury” class actions....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
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
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