Tag Archives: Article III

Ninth Circuit Holds Alleged FCRA Violation Satisfies Article III Standing

The Ninth Circuit added another chapter to the storied tale of Article III standing jurisprudence on August 15 when, on remand from the Supreme Court, the appellate court unanimously revived a plaintiff’s Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) suit in Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2017 WL 3480695 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2017). The … Continue Reading

Federal Judge in Maryland Remands Data Breach Class Action Following in Spokeo Decision’s Footsteps

Just days after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Spokeo v. Robins, the highly anticipated decision is already impacting data breach class actions across the country. The defendant in the Spokeo case contended that the plaintiff had suffered no concrete injury, and that a mere statutory violation is not enough of an injury to give plaintiffs … Continue Reading

In Spokeo v. Robins, The United States Supreme Court Articulates a Need for ‘Concrete’ Injury To Sue in Federal Court

The federal judiciary derives its power from Article III of the United States Constitution. That power is limited to deciding “Cases” and “Controversies,” Art. III, section 2. In the case of Spokeo v. Robins, the United States Supreme Court considered whether a plaintiff presents such a “case” or “controversy” where he only alleged a violation of a … Continue Reading

Seventh Circuit Revives Data Security Breach Class Action Against Neiman Marcus: Finds Article III Standing In Class Expenses “Resolving Fraudulent Charges and Protecting…Against Future Identity Theft.”

A panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Wood, C.J., Kanne, J. and Tinder, J.) has reversed the dismissal of a data security breach class action lawsuit against luxury department store Neiman Marcus. This lawsuit stemmed from a hacking incident in which “350,000 cards were potentially exposed; and 9,200 of those 350,000 cards were … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Ruling in Clapper v. Amnesty International Leaving Data Breach Class Actions in Danger?

In Clapper vs. Amnesty International, a group including journalists, human right activists, and labor leaders challenged the 2008 amendments made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The amendments included broadening the surveillance powers of the federal government with respect to communications outside the U.S. Plaintiffs claimed that their work required open communication with persons around … Continue Reading
LexBlog