The Ghost of Spokeo: More on Standing in Statutory Damages Class Action Litigation, with a Typicality Twist

Abstract

This article discusses and analyzes the issue in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, argued before the Supreme Court on March 30, 2021. This appeal from the Ninth Circuit arises from a plaintiff’s allegations that the defendant TransUnion’s violated various provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case returns the Court to a consideration of Article III standing requirements in Rule 23 statutory damage class action litigation, which the Court previously addressed in its 2016 decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. Currently there is confusion and an array of different applications of the Spokeo decision across the lower federal courts. The Court will address the proper interpretation of its concreteness and immediacy requirements in order for a court to find plaintiff’s and class members’ standing in statutory damage cases. The appeal again asks the Court to discuss whether a court may legitimately certify a class action where most members have not suffered actual injury and therefore, according to the defendants, lack sufficient Article III standing. The Court also will address whether a court may certify a class action where the defendant contends that the class representative’s alleged injuries are not typical of most class members.

Keywords: TransUnion, Ramirez, Spokeo, Article III standing, Rule 23, Rule 23 standing, Rule 23(a)(2) typicality, typicality, Fair Credit Reporting Act, statutory damage cases, no injury class, concreteness, immediacyy