On May 16, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit's ruling that a plaintiff had standing to sue a consumer reporting agency. The plaintiff filed suit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, claiming that the consumer reporting agency published incorrect information about the plaintiff online. The Court held that the Ninth Circuit failed to separately analyze whether the alleged injury was both particularized and concrete, which is necessary for an analysis of standing under Article III. The Supreme Court remanded the case, requiring the Ninth Circuit to individually analyze the requirements of particularity and concreteness. For more information, please see the corresponding Jones Day Alert.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.