In the past two months, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
and Eighth Circuits have issued significant decisions on the issue
of standing in privacy cases. Taken together, these decisions are
seemingly inconsistent, offering conflicting standards for what
constitutes a cognizable injury sufficient to confer standing at
the pleading stage in privacy cases.
Carlsen v. GameStop, Inc.
In Carlsen v. GameStop, Inc., No. 15-2453 (Eighth Cir.
Aug. 16, 2016), the Eighth Circuit expanded standing to bring
claims for violations of a privacy policy. Matthew Carlsen filed a
class action suit for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and
other state claims, alleging that GameStop violated its privacy
policy, which provided that, with certain exceptions, GameStop did
not share personal information with third parties. Specifically,
Carlsen alleged that when users logged onto the Game Informer
website, which was controlled by GameStop, through their Facebook
accounts, the
