standing

Subscribe to standing

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the Eleventh Circuit (and a growing majority of courts) in rejecting the “Hunstein theory” of liability under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).  In Shields v. Professional Bureau of Collections of Maryland, Inc., the Tenth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of FDCPA claims for lack of standing, confirming that a debt collector’s use of an outside mail vendor does not constitute an actionable, concrete injury.… Continue Reading

In an unpublished opinion, a New Jersey federal district court has ruled that a plaintiff did not have Article III standing to assert a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act based solely on her receipt of an allegedly misleading collection letter.

In Valentine v Unifund CCR, LLC; Distressed Asset Portfolio III, et al.… Continue Reading

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

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week in TransUnion, LLC. v. Ramirez that only class members who were concretely harmed by TransUnion’s FCRA violation had Article III standing to seek damages.

In the case, Sergio Ramirez, the named plaintiff, alleged that he suffered difficulty in obtaining credit and other harm after an automobile dealer received a credit report from TransUnion indicating that his name matched a name found on the list of terrorists and narcotics traffickers with whom U.S.… Continue Reading

In a thoughtful opinion that diverges from how other circuit courts have addressed the issue, the Second Circuit recently issued a ruling clarifying the circumstances when data breach plaintiffs can rely on fear of identity theft to establish Article III standing.

The case is McMorris v. Carlos Lopez & Associates, LLP (CLA). … Continue Reading

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has dismissed for lack of Article III standing the lawsuit filed by a credit union challenging President Trump’s appointment of Mick Mulvaney as CFPB Acting Director.  The dismissal has no impact on Leandra English’s appeal to the D.C. Circuit of the D.C.… 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