Class Action Defense News, Developments and Commentary

Class Action Lawsuit Defense

Home | Class Action Lawsuit Defense

<a href="https://classactionlawsuitdefense.bakerhostetlerblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2015/11/Supreme-Court-iStock_000008258486_Large_bw.jpg"><img class="alignright wp-image-2447 size-medium" src="https://classactionlawsuitdefense.bakerhostetlerblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2015/11/Supreme-Court-iStock_000008258486_Large_bw-300x222.jpg" alt="Supreme Court iStock_000008258486_Large_bw" width="300" height="222" /></a>Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided <em><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/13-1339_f2q3.pdf">Robins v. Spokeo, Inc.,</a></em> which addressed the question of whether a plaintiff has satisfied Article III’s injury-in-fact standing requirement by alleging a statutory violation but no concrete injury. Our sister blog, the <a href="http://www.dataprivacymonitor.com/online-privacy/concrete-and-particularized-what-the-supreme-courts-spokeo-ruling-may-mean-for-privacy-class-actions-and-big-data-the-first-in-a-series/">Data Privacy Monitor</a>, provides initial coverage <a href="http://www.dataprivacymonitor.com/online-privacy/concrete-and-particularized-what-the-supreme-courts-spokeo-ruling-may-mean-for-privacy-class-actions-and-big-data-the-first-in-a-series/">here</a>. Stay tuned as we analyze this important ruling which could have broad-ranging implications for class actions arising under statutory causes of action.

Supreme Court Holds That Plaintiffs Must Allege Concrete and Particularized Injury To Have Standing To Assert FCRA Claim