The Eleventh Circuit recently took a huge bite out of consumers’ ability to bring class actions. In Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 33995 (11th Cir. Oct. 28, 2020) (en banc), the court uprooted the circuit’s plaintiff-friendly view of standing and forcefully held that consumers can’t sue for technical statutory violations.

A recent decision in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania confirms Third Circuit precedent that an employer’s failure to provide a consumer with notice of their rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), as required by the FCRA, does not cause an injury-in-fact where the plaintiffs ultimately became aware of their rights and timely brought

A recent decision from the District of New Jersey recently added to a growing court split about what was required for a plaintiff to establish Article III standing in the context of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) litigation.  Given the plaintiff-bar friendly ruling, more litigation (including more putative class action litigation) can be expected

Standing to bring suit is an issue that is never waived and never goes away, regardless of the parties’ arguments.  Recently, the Ninth Circuit reviewed an appeal of an FCRA claim that had gone through discovery, summary judgment, and a fully briefed appeal.  It determined that the parties and the lower court had focused on