Ruling Could Limit Federal Court Access for Class Actions
Alleging Only Procedural Violations
In a ruling with potentially broad
implications for class actions, the Supreme Court this week
reaffirmed that federal court standing requires a showing of
injury-in-fact that is both "concrete" and
"particularized." These requirements are no less
applicable where a plaintiff's claim is based solely on a
procedural statutory violation. Accordingly, in Spokeo,
Inc. v. Robins,1 the Court remanded a Ninth
Circuit decision for consideration of whether the plaintiff had
adequately pled a concrete injury caused by an alleged procedural
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA).2 In so doing, the Court held that a
plaintiff does not "automatically satisfy the injury-in-fact
requirement whenever a statute grants a right and purports to
authorize a suit to vindicate it."
