TransUnion Decision Provides New Guidance on Article III Standing
RSHC Partner Matthew Kennison explains the significance of the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 ruling on the case:
Has a plaintiff suffered a real, concrete, non-abstract harm if there is incorrect and embarrassing information in the plaintiff’s credit file, but that information is never disclosed to a third party? Or, as the Supreme Court put it, “if inaccurate information falls into a consumer’s credit file, does it make a sound?" Last Friday, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court answered no. In doing so, the Court reigned in broad views of the Court’s language in Spokeo, reaffirmed long-standing concepts related to Article III standing, and provided helpful precedent and guidance for defendants defending against future class actions.