Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (U.S. May 16, 2016), it is clear that "Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation," such that a plaintiff cannot "allege a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm, and satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III." Id. at 1549. Yet, the Court did not go so far as to rule that "the risk of real harm cannot satisfy the requirement of concreteness," and instead recognized that "the violation of a procedural right granted by statute can ...
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (May 16, 2016) In a 6-2 decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the United States Supreme Court spoke on the issue of standing when statutory violations are alleged, and its opinion could have profound effects on TCPA litigation. Holding that Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation, the Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, stating that because the "Ninth Circuit failed to fully appreciate the distinction between concreteness and particularization, its ...
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857, 2016 WL 228345 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) In a much anticipated decision, a majority of the United States Supreme Court held that unaccepted offers of full judgment and settlement do not moot claims. By way of background, Plaintiff filed a TCPA class action. Defendant made an a settlement offer and offer of judgment for the amount of relief the named plaintiff could obtain, then moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when Plaintiff rejected the offers. The Majority (Justices Ginsberg, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan)