spokeo

Subscribe to spokeo

After reviewing the facts and holding in Ramirez, we discuss how the decision clarifies the concrete harm requirement established by SCOTUS’s Spokeo decision, Ramirez’s implications for class action and individual lawsuits alleging violations of federal consumer financial protection laws, and the potential impact on state court litigation.

Chris Willis, Co-Chair of Ballard Spahr’s Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the conversation, joined by Dan McKenna, Practice Group Leader of the firm’s Consumer Financial Services Litigation Group.… Continue Reading

This past May, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, ruled 6-2 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 damages in federal court unless the plaintiff can show that he or she suffered “concrete,” “real” harm as a result of the violation. … Continue Reading

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, an important case presenting the question of whether a plaintiff who cannot show any actual harm from a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) nevertheless has standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to sue for statutory damages in federal court. … Continue Reading

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 violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) nevertheless has standing under Article III of the U.S.… Continue Reading

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed yesterday to hear an important case that will decide whether a plaintiff who cannot show any actual harm from a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act nevertheless has standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to sue for statutory damages in federal court.  The consequences of the Supreme Court’s eventual decision will likely extend significantly beyond FCRA litigation, and affect numerous other statutes and the viability of class actions where alleged technical violations did not cause any actual harm.… Continue Reading

We have previously written about Charvat v. Mutual First Federal Credit Union, the case in which the Eighth Circuit held last year that denial of a statutory right is a sufficient injury to confer standing, even if the injury is only “informational” and does not include “an additional economic or other injury.” … Continue Reading