In That Case: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
The Justice Insiders Podcast: Jarkesy’s Implications for the Administrative State
5 Key Takeaways | ITC Litigation and Enforcement Conference
Recent Trends in Article III Standing - The Consumer Finance Podcast
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®
SCOTUS Watch: The ACA and Key Health Law Areas Justice Barrett Could Impact - Diagnosing Health Care Podcast
Podcast: Texas v. United States of America
Polsinelli Podcasts - Supreme Court Closes Gap on Bankruptcy Issue
As part of Manatt’s continuing monthly coverage of the aftermath of Facebook v. Duguid and how district courts are applying it to determine whether a calling system meets the Supreme Court’s newly clarified definition of an...more
What are the most significant judicial decisions affecting class action litigation, and how might they impact your business?...more
Please join Troutman Pepper Partner Chris Willis and his colleagues Jonathan Floyd and Meagan Mihalko as they discuss recent trends in Article III standing in the federal courts. The trio examine why this is a big deal in...more
A number of federal privacy laws provide private rights of action, allowing individuals (or class actions) to bring claims alleging violations of certain privacy laws. Some examples of these statutes include the Video Privacy...more
Class actions for money damages that involve class members who do not have Article III standing in the Eleventh Circuit are improper even if such members would have standing in other jurisdictions. In a unanimous decision...more
The latest trends and developments in the class action world. Since our last update was published, the United States Supreme Court has addressed a number of appeals involving class actions. Requirement of Concrete...more
On May 26, 2021, the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) putative class action arising from the transmission of a single text message to the plaintiff. The...more
Will anything stop the continuing barrage of class action lawsuits under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)? In 2020, TCPA lawsuits remained one of the most commonly-filed type of class action in federal courts...more
On December 16, 2019, the Supreme Court denied DISH Network’s petition for certiorari seeking to overturn a $61 million judgment for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) violations based on telemarking calls made to...more
On December 16, 2019, the United States Supreme Court declined to review Krakauer v. Dish Network LLC, thus leaving unresolved a circuit split regarding Article III standing under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act...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
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
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
From the first month of district court decisions issued since the United States Supreme Court decided Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339, 2016 WL 2842447, *3 (U.S. May 16, 2016), it appears the needle on Article III standing...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its much-anticipated ruling in Spokeo v. Robins, in which the Court considered whether Congress can confer Article III standing on a plaintiff to bring an action based on an alleged...more
BELTWAY - Every Last Penny Counts - Five federal banking agencies issued a Supervisory Bulletin titled “Interagency Guidance Regarding Deposit Reconciliation Practices” (the “Guidance”). The Guidance outlines...more
As reported in our recent TCPA Connect, on May 16 the United States Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated ruling in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. The High Court ruled that a plaintiff must show a "concrete" injury-in-fact to...more
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
BREAKING: SCOTUS Rules on Spokeo, Significant Implications for TCPA Cases - The Supreme Court of the United States ruled yesterday in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins that a plaintiff must show an injury in fact before pursuing a...more
In a much-anticipated decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled on Monday in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339, 2016 WL 2842447 (May 16, 2016), that a consumer cannot bring a lawsuit in federal court based only on a...more
On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, ruling that a plaintiff must sufficiently allege an injury that is both concrete and particularized in order to have Article III standing, and further that a...more
In a 6-2 decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the United States Supreme Court spoke on the issue of standing when statutory violations are alleged, and its opinion could have profound effects on TCPA litigation. Holding...more
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
The world changed on May 16, 2016. Many sorts of predatory consumer class actions—you know the kind where the lawyers make millions and the consumers receive nickles?—likely just met their demise. And with the recent passing...more
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of complete relief does not moot a plaintiff's individual claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third...more