Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, holding that a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing Article III standing by alleging an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent.¹ The Court stated that “Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation,” and that a plaintiff cannot “allege a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm, and satisfy the injury in fact requirement of Article III.”²

Following Spokeo, courts across the nation have been grappling with how to interpret and apply the decision. In particular, a jurisdictional divide has arisen regarding courts’ interpretations of the standing issue in Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) consumer protection class actions. Courts in the Seventh and Eighth Circuits, for example, have tended to find no standing in FCRA cases.³ Conversely, the Ninth Circuit has leaned toward plaintiff-friendly findings of standing in FCRA cases.⁴ Thus, the post-Spokeo FCRA class action jurisprudence demonstrates the criticality of forum in determining a defendant’s likelihood of success in challenging standing.Continue Reading Post-Spokeo Jurisdictional Divide Continues as Northern District of California Rejects TransUnion’s Lack of Standing Argument