The United States Supreme Court has again granted a petition to examine standing in the context of 
class actions, specifically whether Article III of the Constitution permits members of a certified class to recover money damages when members of the certified class suffered no actual injury. This issue was presented to the Supreme Court after
Ninth Circuit Rules That Users, Not Consumers, Must Prove an Authorized Purpose for Obtaining a Consumer Report
Synopsis: Last month, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion, affirming broad Article III standing and holding that, for permissible-purpose claims, a consumer-plaintiff need allege only that his/her credit report was obtained for a purpose not authorized by the statute to survive a motion to dismiss, regardless of whether the report is published or otherwise
In Moran, Dissent Sets Up Arguments for Other Circuits to Find Dismissals Are Adverse Events
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) bars consumer reporting agencies from reporting civil suits, civil judgments, records of arrest, and other “adverse items” more than seven years after they occur. In a recent decision in Moran v. The Screening Pros, the Ninth Circuit held that the later dismissal of criminal indictments or charges was
Eighth Circuit Alert: District Courts Must Determine Article III Standing Before Approving Class Settlements
On January 8, 2019, Judge Grasz, writing for an Eighth Circuit panel, reiterated the need for district courts to determine Article III standing before approving class settlements. The appeal stemmed from a putative class action wherein U.S. District Court Judge Nanette Laughrey decided to enforce the parties’ tentative settlement agreement without first deciding the standing
The Ninth Circuit Demands Simplicity: Background Check Disclosure Forms That Contain State-Law Notices or Improper Grammar Violate the FCRA
Seyfarth Synopsis: As part of an evolving trend of narrowly interpreting the FCRA’s “standalone” disclosure and “clear and conspicuous” disclosure requirements, the Ninth Circuit has held that users of consumer reports may violate the FCRA and ICRAA by including “extraneous” state law notices and potentially “confusing” language in background disclosure forms.
Both the Fair Credit
Robins v. Spokeo, Inc.: Ninth Circuit Holds That A Materially Inaccurate Report Is A Concrete Injury Even If The Inaccuracy Did Not Adversely Affect The Consumer
Seyfarth Synopsis: In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff must have a concrete injury to sue for FCRA violations. Following Spokeo’s remand, courts have held that consumers have standing to sue if their reports are inaccurate even if an inaccuracy did not adversely affect them.
In Spokeo,
Spokeo v. Robins: The U.S. Supreme Court Finds Concrete Injury Is Required Under Article III But Remands Back To The Ninth Circuit
Also By Robert T. Szyba, and Ephraim J. Pierre
Seyfarth Synopsis: In deciding Spokeo v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that plaintiffs seeking to establish that they have standing to sue must show “an invasion of a legally protected interest” that is particularized and concrete — that is, the injury “must actually
Upcoming Webinar! Retailers: How to Reduce Your Risk of a Class Action Lawsuit
On Thursday, September 10 at 12:00 p.m. Central, Seyfarth attorneys Michael Burns, Robert Milligan and Jason Stiehl will present the second installment of our 2015 Class Action Webinar Series. Presenters will discuss the climate to help retailers avoid becoming targets of litigation. This webinar will provide an overview of the current class action lawsuit landscape
How To Tell A Mountain From A Molehill: Ninth Circuit Ponders Article III’s “Injury-In-Fact” Requirement In FCRA Case
“Injury-in-fact is not Mount Everest,” Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito once opined. The threshold to establish constitutional standing — which requires that plaintiffs establish an “injury-in-fact” — is low; so low that in most types of lawsuits, plaintiffs have no trouble scaling the requirement. While standing may not be Mount Everest, in consumer privacy lawsuits,