“No Concrete Harm, No Standing” - The U.S. Supreme Court Decision on FCRA Claims

Akin Gump published a client alert on the recent Supreme Court decision, TransUnion v. Ramirez, which held that “[o]nly plaintiffs concretely harmed by a defendant’s statutory violation have Article III standing to seek damages against that private defendant in federal court.” As the Court put it, “[n]o concrete harm, no standing.” The Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion provides much-needed clarity as to the scope of federal court standing in the wake of Spokeo. Going forward, plaintiffs—whether in individual or putative class actions—will be prohibited from asserting claims arising from statutory violations, absent allegations of concrete harm resulting from the alleged violation. To read the full alert, please click here.