United States: Second Time’s The Charm? Supreme Court Takes Up Landmark FCRA Case To Address Whether Congress Can Create Standing

Last Updated: April 30 2015
Article by Angela Kleine and Nancy Thomas

Zombie or no-injury plaintiffs seeking to represent zombie or no-injury classes are on the rise. In these suits, plaintiff was not injured, and there's no way to prove who, if anyone, in the class was. Thomas Robins is one of those plaintiffs who brought suit on behalf of a class of similarly situated consumers against Spokeo for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The Ninth Circuit found Robins had standing to pursue his claim for statutory damages authorized by the FCRA and, of course, attorney's fees for class counsel.

The Supreme Court tried once before to consider whether Congress can create Article III standing by including a right to recover statutory damages. Edwards v. First American Corp., 610 F.3d 514 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. granted, 131 S. Ct. 3022 (2011), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 132 S. Ct. 2536 (2012). After agreeing to hear the case despite the Solicitor General's view otherwise, and after hearing oral argument, the Court dismissed certiorari without explanation.

The Supreme Court has now decided to consider the issue again, granting certiorari on "Whether Congress may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing a private right of action based on a bare violation of a federal statute." Spokeo, Inc. v. Thomas Robins, No. 13-1339. If the Court reaches the finish line this time, the decision could have significant implications for claims brought under the FCRA and numerous other statutes.

THE BACKDROP

Spokeo operates a website where users can find information about individuals. The information ranges from address and phone number to things like "economic health" and online purchases, which Spokeo collects from various public sources. Spokeo allegedly markets and sells this information to employers evaluating possible hires, among other purchasers.

Thomas Robins sued in federal court under the FCRA's express private right of action, alleging that Spokeo displayed a "consumer report" about him that inaccurately reported his age, wealth, employment, marital status, and education, which he contends harmed his employment prospects. Robins v. Spokeo, Inc. ("Spokeo"), Case No. CV10-05306 ODW (AGRx) (C.D. Cal. filed July 20, 2010). Robins asserts that this allegedly inaccurate information violated the FCRA because the information published about him qualified as a "consumer report" under the FCRA and Spokeo is a "consumer reporting agency" that failed to follow the statute's accuracy and procedural requirements.

Robins did not allege any injury caused by this alleged FCRA violation, aside from speculative potential harm to future employment prospects. Instead, he brought suit seeking statutory damages. Article III requires plaintiff to plead and prove "injury in fact"—a "concrete and particularized harm" fairly traceable to the challenged practice. See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Robins contended the FCRA entitled him to bring suit because it provides a private right of action to ensure consumer reporting agencies provide accurate information even in the absence of any concrete injury. Spokeo moved to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing Congress could not remove the Article III standing requirement by statute.

THE SPOKEO RULINGS AND RELATED NINTH CIRCUIT PRECEDENT

The district court initially rejected Spokeo's argument, but then reconsidered and dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. Spokeo, No. CV10-05306 ODW (AGRx), 2011 WL 11562151 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2011). The court held that Robins's alleged injury was too speculative and that a bare violation of the FCRA does not confer standing, noting, "Otherwise, federal courts will be inundated by web surfers' endless complaints." Id., at *1.

The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the alleged violation of Robins' rights under the FCRA, which provides for statutory damages in cases of willful violations of the statute, was "sufficient to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III." Spokeo, 742 F.3d 409, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2014).

In doing so, the Ninth Circuit followed the Sixth Circuit, which held that "[t]he Act does not require a consumer to wait for unreasonable credit reporting procedures to result in the denial of credit or other consequential harm before enforcing her statutory rights." Beaudry v. TeleCheck Servs., Inc., 579 F.3d 702, 705 (6th Cir. 2009); see also Murray v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., 434 F.3d 948, 953 (7th Cir. 2006) (reversing a denial of class certification, holding that statutory damages are available under the FCRA "without proof of injury"). The Eighth Circuit followed the Ninth and Sixth Circuits in allowing a no-injury plaintiff to pursue a FCRA claim. Hammer v. Sam's East, Inc., 754 F.3d 492, 500 (8th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1175 (2015).

In contrast, the Second and Fourth Circuits have come out differently in cases involving other federal statutes. See Kendall v. Empls. Retirement Plan of Avon Prods., 561 F.3d 112, 121 (2d Cir. 2009) (ERISA); David v. Alphin, 704 F.3d 327, 338-39 (4th Cir. 2013) (ERISA); see also Joint Stock Soc'y v. UDV N. Am., Inc., 266 F.3d 164, 176 (3d Cir. 2001) (holding plaintiff who never sold vodka in the United States lacked the requisite injury to establish standing to bring a Lanham Act claim based on defendants' use of Smirnoff name). It seems likely these Circuits would reach the same result if faced with a FCRA claim, just as the Ninth Circuit did when it applied its prior standing decisions. See Spokeo, 742 F.3d at 412-13 (citing Edwards, 610 F.3d at 517).

THE SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS SO FAR

Spokeo petitioned the Supreme Court to review the holding. Spokeo, Case No. 13-1339 (May 1, 2014). The Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States as to whether certiorari should be granted. In response, the Solicitor General and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed an amicus brief recommending that the Supreme Court deny certiorari. They argued that the law is clear that the FCRA grants individual consumers a statutory entitlement to be free from a credit reporting agency's dissemination of inaccurate information about themselves, noting that the FCRA requires consumer reporting agencies to employ reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy. They viewed disseminating inaccurate information about Robins, in violation of his asserted FCRA rights, as a tangible harm, even if Robins was not actually injured in any concrete way.

This brief offers a rare glimpse into the Bureau's views on the FCRA. In the wake of the Dodd-Frank Act, the authority to publish FCRA rules, regulations, and guidelines transferred from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to the CFPB, and the FTC rescinded its existing guidance interpreting the statute. The Bureau, for its part, has yet to issue interpretive guidance or regulations, leaving entities subject to the FCRA to read the tea leaves in such filings. In the amicus brief, as anticipated, the CFPB interprets the statute broadly, in a way that maximizes potential economic recovery by consumers, even where the consumers have not alleged any actual injury.

THE POTENTIALLY FAR-REACHING IMPLICATIONS OF THE COURT'S DECISION

The FCRA broadly governs the collection, assembly, and use of consumer report information, and provides the framework for the credit reporting system. As the Spokeo case demonstrates, though, plaintiffs are increasingly attempting to apply the FCRA outside the traditional realm of consumer reporting agencies. The statute's broad and, as the Supreme Court has put it, "less than pellucid language" has made these types of FCRA claims an increasingly attractive endeavor for the plaintiffs' bar and regulatory agencies. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 70 (2007).

Spokeo and the related decisions have upped the ante in these cases. The statute imposes extensive technical requirements on any entity reporting, obtaining, or furnishing consumer reporting information as defined by the statute. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b-1681x. The statute further provides for automatic statutory damages of $100-$1,000 per violation in the case of "willful" violations, "actual damages" for negligent violations, as well as punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 1681o. The highly technical statutory framework combined with the large dollar amounts attached to each alleged violation—regardless of whether any consumer was actually harmed—can add up to enormous potential paydays in class actions. An affirmance by the Supreme Court would fan those flames, expanding what has become an enticing target for plaintiffs' class action lawyers by lowering the bar to class certification and providing settlement leverage even in meritless FCRA class actions.

The implications of a Supreme Court decision in Spokeo go well beyond the FCRA. The same standing question arises under numerous other federal statutes that also provide private rights of action and authorize recovery of statutory damages, including the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Video Privacy Protection Act, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Claims under the federal privacy statutes in particular have been the subject of standing challenges, with defendants arguing that plaintiffs cannot pursue claims for violation of these federal statutes absent allegations of some actual, concrete injury. The Supreme Court's ruling will likely impact the standing requirements of these statutes as well.

The ruling likely also will have implications for certification of classes pursuing these no-injury claims. Whether the challenged practice caused injury to plaintiff and each putative class member often creates an individualized issue that is not subject to common proof. The Supreme Court's views on whether no-injury plaintiffs can certify no-injury classes will have an enormous impact on the class action landscape.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Angela Kleine
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions