WASHINGTON—A Supreme Court ruling in a case related to consumer credit reporting is likely to lead to only more confusion, according to NAFCU.
The Supreme Court has denied a request to review a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision on Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, and also declined to reconsider its May 2016 principles, which determined that the plaintiff needs to plead “concrete” injuries to establish standing to maintain an action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
NAFCU Regulatory Affairs Counsel Ann Kossachev noted that since the Supreme Court's 2016 decision, lower courts have varied in their application of the principles, leading to confusion. Kossachev said the Supreme Court's decision to not review its original principles will likely lead to more disagreement among lower courts when determining a plaintiff's standing in a case.
Spokeo Inc., a consumer reporting agency, gathered and reported information about the plaintiff, Robins. Robins disputed the information as inaccurate and filed a class action claiming that the company failed to comply with FCRA obligations. The district court initially dismissed the case, finding that Robins did not adequately plead an injury in fact to establish standing. The Ninth Circuit reversed that decision, noting that Robins had alleged that Spokeo violated his statutory rights and his personal interests in the handling of his credit information.
In May 2016, the Supreme Court held that showing that an injury is particularized is not enough to establish standing; that a plaintiff must also show that the injury was concrete. The Supreme Court ordered the Ninth Circuit to complete its analysis and consider whether there was an actual injury, NAFCU noted.
The Ninth Circuit Court in August 2017 determined that the plaintiff had sufficiently claimed a concrete injury. Spokeo then filed a second request to the Supreme Court to review the circuit court's decision, which was denied last week, NAFCU reported.