The Supreme Court’s Spokeo decision confirmed that the injury-in-fact requirements for Article III standing for class action plaintiffs require that the plaintiff suffered a concrete and particularized injury as opposed to a bare allegation that a consumer protection or privacy statute had been violated.
Since Spokeo, a few circuit courts have weighed in on this issue with somewhat conflicting results as to when Article III standing does, and does not, exist.
As no-injury cases are dismissed in federal court cases, plaintiffs now look to file these claims in state courts, venues not traditionally favorable to defendants. An unintended consequence of the Spokeo ruling may be its defeat of CAFA removal to federal court when defendants are faced with “no-injury” class actions filed in state court.
Listen as Strafford’s authoritative panel (including Mayer Brown’s Archis Parasharami and Dan Jones) examines the impact of Spokeo on Article III standing for no-injury class action claims, defending no-injury class actions in state court and navigating the impact of Spokeo on CAFA removal.
For more information, please visit the event website.