Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
A personal information aggregator is again seeking a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court, citing numerous disparities in circuit court of appeals rulings that could be clarified if the jurists heard the Spokeo FCRA class action lawsuit.
In the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a panel of justices ruled that Thomas Robins had standing to pursue his claims of violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act because the statute created rights that did not require a separate injury. The man alleged that the company misrepresented his education and job status.
Spokeo has shot back multiple times, including in a previous request to the Supreme Court that there is no injury suffered because the two pieces of information are more laudatory than Robins’ actual experience. They also argue in the latest request for a writ of certiorari that the Second and Fourth Circuits would have ruled differently than the Ninth if they heard the same case.
In both of those jurisdictions, a plaintiff must still cite an injury-in-fact, such as personal harm or economic loss, in order to satisfy Article III standing. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently dismissed an appeal regarding patents filed by Consumer Watchdog for the same concern.
Spokeo notes that the class action lawsuit leads to “The exceptional importance of the question presented—whether a mere statutory violation, without more, satisfies the constitutional requirement of an injury-in-fact— [which] is underscored by the ten amicus briefs.”
Companies including Facebook have written in support of Spokeo as well as the Supreme Court taking on the case. Most are major technology firms and e-commerce giants who argue that there are about a dozen statutes, including the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act that in addition to the Fair Credit Reporting Act provide for statutory right.
In the original Spokeo class action lawsuit, Robins alleged that because the company provided significant personal information, it was not a search engine so much as it was a consumer-reporting agency. Since the portal revealed so much data, it should be held to higher standards and false information damaged the job and financial prospects for plaintiffs including Robins.
The plaintiff is represented by Steven Woodrow, Jay Edelson and Rafey S. Balabanian of Edelson PC.
The Spokeo FCRA Class Action Lawsuit is Thomas Robins v. Spokeo Inc., Case No. 11-cv-56843, in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
UPDATE: On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Robins v. Spokeo that plaintiffs must prove both “concrete and particularized” injury when pursuing litigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) instead of focusing on mere technical violations.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
One thought on Defendants Seek Supremes’ View on Spokeo FCRA Class Action Lawsuit
UPDATE: On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Robins v. Spokeo that plaintiffs must prove both “concrete and particularized” injury when pursuing litigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) instead of focusing on mere technical violations.