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
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins was a game-changer. That decision single-handedly raised the bar for a plaintiff alleging a violation of a consumer protection statute such as the Fair Credit...more
ARTICLE III STANDING- The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins was a game-changer. That decision single-handedly raised the bar for a plaintiff alleging a violation of a consumer protection statute...more
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), federal courts have continued to examine what is an injury in fact under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). On April 4, 2022, the...more
On April 4, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit joined the Ninth Circuit in holding that a plaintiff lacked Article III standing to prosecute her statutory claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)...more
On June 25, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, revisiting some of the Article III standing principles it had set forth in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), and addressing their...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
On June 25, 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in TransUnion v. Ramirez, holding that consumer class action claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) must allege the actual spread of misleading...more
Two different federal appellate panels recently reached diverging conclusions on the question of whether a single phone call or a single text provides a sufficient injury in fact for an individual to establish standing to sue...more
On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision in TransUnion v. Ramirez that clarified the injury-in-fact plaintiffs must show to have standing to assert statutory privacy rights in federal court. This follows...more
The Supreme Court further limited consumer lawsuits in TransUnion, LLC v. Ramirez, siding with credit reporting agency TransUnion in a 5-4 decision holding that thousands of consumers improperly flagged as potential...more
On May 14, 2021, the Seventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals issued a decision reaffirming the rule from “a slew of cases” that, without injury, a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim alleging a bare...more
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), courts have grappled with what constitutes a sufficient injury in fact to satisfy Article III standing requirements. Predominant Issues...more
Defense arguments about a plaintiff’s lack of standing in federal court can come back to bite them, as shown by the Southern District of Florida’s recent decision in Guerra v. Newport Beach Auto. Grp. LLC, No. 21-20568, 2021...more
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on March 30, 2021, in a case that will help clarify when an intangible, nonmonetary injury is sufficiently “concrete and particularized” to give rise to Article III standing. The...more
In the years following the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1549 (2016) — which held that “bare procedural violation[s], divorced from any concrete harm, [do not] satisfy the injury-in-fact...more
Who has standing to bring claims for alleged statutory violations of privacy and cybersecurity statutes? There is no easy answer to this question. In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the Supreme Court explained that just because a...more
In order to bring an action in any United States tribunal, a party must have “standing.” “The doctrine [of standing] limits the category of litigants empowered to maintain a lawsuit in federal court to seek redress for a...more
On November 17, 2020, the Seventh Circuit addressed what constitutes an injury-in-fact for standing purposes under Illinois’s privacy law, the Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). This is the latest in a series of...more
The Need for Compensable Damage to Prove Standing - The United States Supreme Court has issued a decision in Spokeo v. Robbins. In this Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) case, the Supreme Court considered whether Congress...more
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to review a $40 million class action trial judgment for statutory and punitive damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and its forthcoming decision later this Term will likely be...more
Justice Kavanaugh said earlier this summer that “[c]ourts sometimes makes standing law more complicated than its needs to be.” The majority in the Eleventh Circuit took that statement to heart in its en banc opinion in...more
It well known that there are, unfortunately, many data breaches that frequently put private citizens’ data privacy in jeopardy. States have passed a variety of statutes aimed at addressing this problem in an attempt to...more
In April of 2019, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision in Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier Inc. that was widely viewed as swinging open the doors of courts in the circuit...more
On October 28, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a split (7-3) en banc decision applying Spokeo principles to a claim that a vendor issued a receipt that included more digits from the plaintiff’s credit card...more
A&B Abstract: The Eleventh Circuit’s recent decision in Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., No. 16-16486 (11th Cir. Oct 28, 2020) marks a shift in the court’s position regarding what a consumer plaintiff must allege in...more