On June 25, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (No. 20-297, slip op.) clarified that for standing purposes in federal courts, an important difference exists between (i) a plaintiff’s statutory cause of action to sue over a violation of law, and (ii) a plaintiff suffering concrete harm because of the violation of law. The Court stated that “an injury in law is not an injury in fact” and held that only those plaintiffs who suffer a “concrete injury” apart from the violation of law alone have standing to sue. This case involved TransUnion’s alleged inaccurate reporting of class members as potential threats to America’s national security. Only a subset of the class, however, was the subject of these incorrect reports provided to third parties, and the Court acknowledged only these individuals as having standing to sue.
Continue Reading Recent Federal Court Decisions Creating Uncertainty Around CCPA Standing