search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
sue: “No concrete harm, no standing.” Te mere fact that a defendant has violated a right conferred on a plaintiff by statute does not show that the plaintiff has been concretely harmed: an “injury in law” is not the same thing as an “injury in fact.” Only the latter gives a plaintiff standing to sue.


Ultimately, the court held that the 1,853 class members TransUnion identified as possible criminals to potential creditors were concretely harmed and could sue. Te 6,332 class members whose (inaccurate) status as criminals was never disclosed to anybody, however, were not concretely harmed and could not sue. Te court additionally held that class members were not harmed by having been mailed information about their credit files in an improper format. As the court explained, there was no evidence that any class members other than the named plaintiff “were confused, distressed, or relied on the” improperly formatted information in any way.


Te court’s decision likely saved TransUnion from tens of millions of dollars in damages (the total award to the class, before the Supreme Court’s ruling, was $40 million). More importantly, it represents another instance of the court stepping in to limit the plaintiff ’s bar’s ability to seek huge damages based on statutory penalties without any accompanying injury. TransUnion makes clear that the absence of a concrete harm to each class member is a basis to deny recovery. Te impact is likely to be significant, particularly in the consumer protection context: the court’s focus on the absence of evidence that class members relied on improper information could, for example, provide a defense in the false-advertising context. TransUnion also provides a further reason for class action defendants to remove cases to federal court: the Constitution’s limits on standing, which underpinned the TransUnion decision, do not apply in state court.


 at Stinson LLP where he advises  services litigation and class action matters. Visit stinson.com to learn more. Stinson is an MBA associate member.


THE MISSOURI BANKER 21


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32