Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 19 OCTOBER 2016

Courts Split On Standing Issues In FCRA Suits After Spokeo

Proskauer Rose LLP
Proskauer Rose LLP
Contributor
Proskauer Rose LLP

Proskauer Rose LLP

Firm Overview Proskauer is an elite global law firm with more than 900 lawyers across key financial...

View firm profile
Explore more from Proskauer Rose LLP

On October 5, 2016, two district courts came to opposite conclusions on whether putative class action plaintiffs had standing to bring claims based on prospective employers' failure to comply with FCRA disclosure requirements.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

On October 5, 2016, two district courts came to opposite conclusions on whether putative class action plaintiffs had standing to bring claims based on prospective employers' failure to comply with Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) disclosure requirements.

Standing under Article III of the Constitution requires (1) an injury in fact (2) fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant and (3) likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins clarified that to confer standing, an injury in fact must be both particularized – affecting the plaintiff in a "personal and individual" way – and concrete – "real, not abstract."

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from