In its 2016 decision in Spokeo v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff alleging a Fair Credit Reporting Act violation does not have standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to sue for statutory...more
Several years ago, in Salcedo v. Hanna, the Eleventh Circuit held that the receipt of a single allegedly unsolicited, autodialed text message was not a concrete enough injury-in-fact to establish Article III standing for a...more
[co-author: David Anthony] In 2020, the appellate courts had numerous opportunities to weigh in on many unanswered questions that remain in litigation after over 50 years since the statute was first enacted. The case law...more
On October 28, 2020, the en banc Eleventh Circuit reversed the Northern District of Georgia’s approval of a class settlement, holding that the settlement was invalid because the named plaintiff did not have standing to sue...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
Takeaway: The Eleventh Circuit has yet to address whether a future risk of identity theft is sufficient to establish standing in a data breach case. In Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 16-16486, 2020 WL 6305084, at *12...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
The federal courts have been struggling for several years to clarify Article III standing law. Is it enough that a plaintiff satisfy the elements of a federal consumer protection statute? ...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
In Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 16-16486, 2020 WL 6305084 (11th Cir. Oct. 28, 2020), the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dealt another blow to the plaintiffs’ class action bar by not only vacating a...more
On October 4, the Eleventh Circuit agreed to review en banc a panel decision holding that a consumer’s heightened risk of identity theft is enough to establish Article III standing. Named plaintiff David Muransky filed a...more
If you are a typical shopper, the last thing on your mind at the checkout counter is your printed credit card receipt. As you juggle your grocery store bags, you might absentmindedly fold the receipt into your wallet, or...more
A&B Abstract: Recent cases by the Eleventh Circuit and the D.C. Circuit deepen the divide among the courts on the standing of consumers to sue for violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”). ...more
On April 22, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit held in Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc. that a plaintiff who claimed to have suffered a heightened risk of identity theft when the defendant printed a receipt containing too many...more
Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit issued an opinion in Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., which, sua sponte, vacated and reissued its earlier ruling in the same case: that consumers have standing...more
Bucking a recent trend and departing from both the Second Circuit’s Katz decision and the Third Circuit’s Kamal decision, the Eleventh Circuit found that a plaintiff had standing to settle a FACTA claim on behalf of a class....more
The Third Circuit recently held that procedural violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”), absent any showing of concrete harm, do not meet Article III standing requirements. Kamal v. J. Crew...more
In a precedential opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded that because the named plaintiff in a class action complaint failed to allege a concrete injury...more
Last Friday, the Third Circuit held that a J. Crew customer lacked standing to the sue company for printing ten digits of his credit card on a receipt, in violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (which...more
Almost one year ago, we wrote about the impact of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) on Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA) class actions and offered practical pointers for defendants confronting...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit added its voice to the chorus of circuit courts of appeal that have held that alleged procedural violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), such as the...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held, for the first time, that a mere procedural violation of a statute does not present the material risk of harm that a plaintiff must allege to establish Article III...more
• On March 8, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a precedential opinion upholding dismissal of a putative consumer class action where the plaintiff failed to plead a concrete injury-in-fact stemming from an...more
A three-judge panel of the Third Circuit recently affirmed a district court ruling that dismissed a suit for violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003 (FACTA) for lack of Article III standing. The...more