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 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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
I’ve been delayed a bit in reporting on this, but the October 2015 term of the U.S. Supreme Court is shaping up to be a blockbuster one for class action law. Perhaps even bigger than the October 2010 term, which brought us...more