JONES DAY PRESENTS®: Insurance Implications of the California Consumer Privacy Act
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to resolve a question that has sharply divided the Circuits: whether a class may be certified even though it contains uninjured members. See e.g., Tyson Foods, Inc. v....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
Colloquially known as the ‘‘Rocket Docket,’’ the Eastern District of Virginia (‘‘EDVA’’) has been the speediest federal court for civil trials since 2008, according to the annual data compiled by the Administrative Office of...more
On February 27, 2020, in a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit in Ramirez v. TransUnion, LLC held that every member of the class must have standing in order to recover damages at the final judgment stage. Judge McKeown filed a...more
- In a matter of first impression within the 9th Circuit, the court held that each member of a certified class must have Article III standing in order to recover individual monetary damages at trial. - Those class members...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
On August 8, the Ninth Circuit issued a highly anticipated decision affirming the district court’s certification of a class of Facebook users who suffered alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that unwanted, prerecorded phone messages to consumers, even without any other alleged harm, met the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing to bring a...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 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
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Spokeo v. Robins, which held that federal plaintiffs alleging a statutory violation must have suffered a real, concrete injury in order to have Article III standing, many defendants...more
Since the passage of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) in 2008, it has been used by plaintiffs’ attorneys to sue companies that use biometric identification technologies. Many BIPA cases have failed...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
Yesterday's post discussed the Court of Appeal's holding in Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 541, that a defendant in a civil proceeding by the Department of Business Oversight...more
We’ve already written about Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed that all federal plaintiffs, even those alleging a statutory violation, must have suffered a real, concrete...more
The Ninth Circuit has opined, again, on whether a statutory violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq.-–-by itself––constitutes a concrete injury for Article III standing purposes. Last...more
On August 15, 2017, in a much-anticipated opinion in a case that has drawn national attention in the past three years, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an alleged violation of the Fair Credit...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
The rising tide of class actions alleging violations of New Jersey’s Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA, pronounced “tic-wun-uh”) has been a cause of concern for companies advertising and selling to...more
Since Spokeo v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), as revised (May 24, 2016), the consumer finance industry has continued to refine what it means to allege a concrete injury in fact and to meet Article III case and controversy...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
A common and understandable concern of companies that suffer a data breach is whether the victims can sue the company. It is tempting to assume that the victims won’t sue if they do not suffer identity theft or monetary loss...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
On October 6, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued its opinion in Nicklaw v. CitiMortgage, Inc., dismissing, for lack of Article III standing, a class action complaint that alleged...more
Invoking the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Spokeo v. Robins, a federal court in New York held that a bank remained on the hook for a $6.2 million class action settlement. What happened - Plaintiffs were...more