A defendant who lost a bench trial in a certified class case
alleging that it violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act by
forcing the plaintiff and class to use electronic funds transfer
services to obtain loans sought to upend the verdict by arguing
that the Supreme Court's recent Spokeo decision made
clear the plaintiff lacked Article III standing to sue. The court
rejected that argument.
In Spokeo, the Supreme Court ruled that for Article III
standing to exist, a plaintiff's injury must be both concrete
and particularized. It clarified that courts must now consider not
only whether the defendant has violated a statute, but also the
nature of the statute and whether the particular violation results
in harm that Congress deemed worthy to prevent. In the case at bar,
the plaintiff's harm, though intangible, was sufficiently
concrete to satisfy Article III standing. Congress enacted the EFTA
to ensure that consumers are not forced to use electronic funds
transfers
