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
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
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
After paying for groceries with a credit card or debit card, the clerk hands the receipt to the customer. In addition to the last four digits of the card number, it contains the first digit. Or perhaps it contains the first...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
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
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
Takeaway: In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), federal courts and litigants have grappled not only with what constitutes an actionable injury sufficient to confer...more
Consumer class action suits continue to be a growing source of concern to marketers and income for plaintiffs’ law firms. This webinar will provide an update on recent consumer class action cases across a range of industries...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
On January 30, 2017, in Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, No. 14-55980, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) plaintiff had sufficiently alleged an Article III...more
On December 13, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion in Jeremy Meyers v. Nicolet Restaurant of De Pere, LLC, __ F. 3d __, No. 16-2075, holding that the named plaintiff in a proposed class...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
D.C. Circuit Hears Argument on FCC Petitions - On October 19, Judges Srinivasan and Pillard and Senior Judge Edwards of the D.C. Circuit heard argument in ACA International v. FCC, which addressed several consolidated...more
Courts Are Giving "Standing" Teeth After Spokeo - Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Spokeo, Inc., v. Robins, courts have further clarified and interpreted the Spokeo decision. Spokeo held that (i) in order to...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
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), lower courts have begun to address whether alleged violations of statutes intended to protect privacy suffice, in the absence of...more