Event Type: CLE / CPD, Webinar
Often, the plaintiffs in consumer class actions allege no actual injury. Those plaintiffs, and their lawyers, simply assert that the defendant has failed to follow some procedure set out by federal law.
In the Spokeo case, the United States Supreme Court considered one such suit. The majority found that a defendant’s statutory violation, by itself, does not always give a plaintiff Article III standing to sue in federal court.
While the Spokeo case dealt with a claim under the FCRA, its analysis would apply to any claim of statutory violation made in any federal court.
We will explain:
- Was the Spokeo decision really a change in the law, or a reaffirmation of prior requirements?
- What must a plaintiff plead to meet the “concreteness” requirement emphasized by the decision?
- How will the Spokeo decision impact FCRA litigation?
- How will it impact other statutory litigation, such as that under the TCPA, FDCPA, VPPA, DPPA, etc.?
- If federal courts refuse to hear suits, might those suits be headed to state courts?
- And how will the plaintiff’s bar strike back?