Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a new decision on the requirement that plaintiffs have “standing” to sue in federal court. More specifically, the Court addressed what is required for a plaintiff to demonstrate “concrete harm.” Following this decision, defendants in class actions will have significant strategic decisions to make about whether and when to challenge the standing to sue of class members.

In TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, Sergio Ramirez learned that TransUnion, one of the major credit reporting agencies, identified him as a “potential match” to someone on the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) list of terrorists, drug traffickers and other criminals with whom it is unlawful to do business. Although by all accounts Ramirez was a law-abiding citizen, a car dealership refused to sell a car to him because TransUnion identified him as a potential match to the OFAC list simply because he shared the same first and last names with someone on the list (without checking any other information). Ramirez brought a class action suit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, alleging that TransUnion failed to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” in credit reports, as required by that statute. He also alleged that disclosures made to him by TransUnion after he requested his credit report were inaccurate.  Ultimately a class was certified, the case was tried to a jury, and the jury awarded over $60 million, later reduced by the Ninth Circuit to about $40 million.

The Supreme Court addressed whether all or only some of the class members were entitled to recover. Out of a total of 8,185 class members, TransUnion issued credit reports to third parties on 1,853 of them during the relevant time period. The remaining 6,332 did not have credit reports issued to any third party, but complained about inaccurate disclosures made to themselves. The Supreme Court concluded that only the 1,853 had suffered “concrete harm” and thus had standing to sue. Doing some quick math, it appears the Court reduced TransUnion’s liability by about 80%.

Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion. He explained that, even where Congress has created a right to sue under a statute, Article III of the Constitution, which provides for courts to decide “cases” or “controversies,” requires courts to “assess whether the alleged injury to the plaintiff has a ‘close relationship’ to a harm ‘traditionally’ recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts.” (Opinion, at 9.) This is straightforward when there is physical or monetary harm, and can also include “reputational harms, disclosure of private information and intrusion upon seclusion,” but overall is less clear when the harm is intangible. (Id.) Applying this test, the Court concluded that the class members whose credit reports were provided to third parties had standing to sue because their harm was similar to the longstanding tort of defamation. (Id. at 17.) But the bulk of the class, whose credit reports were inaccurate but never disseminated during the class period, did not have standing on the “reasonable procedures” claim because publication of the false information is a traditional requirement for defamation (although they might have had standing to sue for injunctive relief). (Id. at 19-20.) The risk of future harm, the Court wrote, was too speculative and unproven because there was no evidence that many of this group of class members were even aware that TransUnion had identified them as a potential match to the OFAC list. “[M]any of them would first learn that they were ‘injured’ when they received a check compensating them for their supposed ‘injury.’” (Id. at 23.) With respect to the claims about inaccuracies in disclosures made when credit reports were requested, the Court characterized these as “formatting violations” and mere “procedural” violations that failed to meet the test of “a harm with a close relationship to a harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts.” (Id. at 25.) The Court sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration of the class certification decision and other issues. (Id. at 27.)

Four justices dissented. In brief, Justice Thomas’s view is that any violation of private, individual rights where Congress creates a private right and a cause of action is sufficient to confer standing. Stressing how the majority took the law in a new direction, he wrote that “never before has this Court declared that legislatures are constitutionally precluded from creating legal rights enforceable in federal court if those rights deviate too far from their common-law roots.” (Thomas, J., dissenting, at 12-13.) Justice Kagan (joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor) joined Justice Thomas’s dissent with a qualification. They would not alter the Court’s prior precedent under which “Article III requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation,” but would find standing to sue on all of the claims in this case, and would give substantial deference to Congress. Justice Kagan wrote that “[o]verriding an authorization to sue is appropriate when but only when Congress could not reasonably have thought that a suit will contribute to compensating or preventing the harm at issue.” (Kagan, J., dissenting, at 3.)

So what does all this mean for defending against class certification in putative class actions? What I found most significant was that the Court confirmed that “[e]very class member must have Article III standing in order to recover individual damages,” a proposition that Chief Justice Roberts had previously endorsed in a concurring opinion, but which had not previously been stated by a majority of the Court. (Opinion, at 15.) In a footnote, however, the Court stated that “[w]e do not here address the distinct question whether every class member must demonstrate standing before a court certifies a class,” citing an Eleventh Circuit decision that requires district courts to consider whether individual issues of standing predominate over common issues when deciding class certification.  (Id. at 15 n.4.) The Eleventh Circuit stated in that case that, in some circumstances, it might be appropriate for a district court to certify a class in which some class members would not have standing and deal with that issue later in the proceeding (while noting that such an approach may be inappropriate where many class members do not have standing). The courts of appeals are split on whether plaintiffs in class actions must establish standing of class members at the class certification stage, with some circuits saying that only the named plaintiffs need to have standing, and others requiring that all class members have standing. The Supreme Court may well take that issue up in a future case.

Significantly, footnote 9 in Justice Thomas’s opinion suggested that there may be circumstances in which, based on the Court’s decision, state courts, some of which have less rigorous standing requirements, might have jurisdiction over claims (even under federal statutes) that cannot be brought in federal court. In some instances, federal courts finding a lack of standing have remanded cases to state court where a defendant would prefer to litigate in federal court. This presents significant strategic considerations for defendants. In some circuits, defendants may be able to defeat class certification because a substantial portion of the class does not have standing. But there also could be cases where a defendant might decide it is better off not challenging the issue of whether a portion of the class has standing until after class certification is decided, or not challenging the standing issue at all and instead challenging those claims on the merits. If a class is likely to be certified, a final judgment against a portion of the class on the merits could be more advantageous to a defendant than a finding of lack of standing in federal court that may leave open the possibility for state court litigation.

Print:
EmailTweetLikeLinkedIn
Photo of Wystan Ackerman Wystan Ackerman

I am a partner at the law firm of Robinson+Cole in Hartford, Connecticut, USA.  My contact information is on the contact page of my blog.  I really enjoy receiving questions, comments, suggestions and even criticism from readers.  So please e-mail me if you…

I am a partner at the law firm of Robinson+Cole in Hartford, Connecticut, USA.  My contact information is on the contact page of my blog.  I really enjoy receiving questions, comments, suggestions and even criticism from readers.  So please e-mail me if you have something to say.  For those looking for my detailed law firm bio, click here.  If you want a more light-hearted and hopefully more interesting summary, read on:

People often ask about my unusual first name, Wystan.  It’s pronounced WISS-ten.  It’s not Winston.  There is no “n” in the middle.  It comes from my father’s favorite poet, W.H. (Wystan Hugh) Auden.  I’ve grown to like the fact that because my name is unusual people tend to remember it better, even if they don’t pronounce it right (and there is no need for anyone to use my last name because I’m always the only Wystan).

I grew up in Deep River, Connecticut, a small town on the west side of the Connecticut River in the south central part of the state.  I’ve always had strong interests in history, politics and baseball.  My heroes growing up were Abraham Lincoln and Wade Boggs (at that time the third baseman for the Boston Red Sox).  I think it was my early fascination with Lincoln that drove me to practice law.  I went to high school at The Williams School in New London, Connecticut, where I edited the school newspaper, played baseball, and was primarily responsible for the installation of a flag pole near the school entrance (it seemed like every other school had one but until my class raised the money and bought one at my urging, Williams had no flag pole).  As a high school senior, my interest in history and politics led me to score high enough on a test of those subjects to be chosen as one of Connecticut’s two delegates to the U.S. Senate Youth Program, which further solidified my interest in law and government.  One of my mentors at Williams was of the view that there were far too many lawyers and I should find something more useful to do, but if I really had to be a lawyer there was always room for one more.  I eventually decided to be that “one more.”  I went on to Bowdoin College, where I wrote for the Bowdoin Orient and majored in government, but took a lot of math classes because I found college math interesting and challenging.  I then went to Columbia Law School, where I was lucky enough to be selected as one of the minions who spent their time fastidiously cite-checking and Blue booking hundred-plus-page articles in the Columbia Law Review.  I also interned in the chambers of then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor when she was a relatively new judge on the Second Circuit, my only connection to someone who now has one-ninth of the last word on what constitutes the law of our land.  I graduated from Columbia in 2001, then worked at Skadden Arps in Boston before returning to Connecticut and joining Robinson+Cole, one of the largest Connecticut-based law firms.  At the end of 2008, I was elected a partner at Robinson+Cole.

I’ve worked on class actions since the start of my career at Skadden.  Being in the insurance capital of Hartford, we have a national insurance litigation practice and I was fortunate to have the opportunity to work on some prominent class actions arising from the 2004 hurricanes in Florida and later Hurricane Katrina, including cases involving the applicability of the flood exclusion, statutes known as valued policy laws, and various other issues.  My interest and experience in class actions gradually led me to focus on that area.

In Connecticut courts I’ve defended various kinds of class actions that go beyond insurance, including cases involving products liability, securities, financial services and consumer contracts.

My insurance class action practice usually takes me outside of Connecticut.  I’ve had the pleasure of working on cases in various federal and state courts and collaborating with great lawyers across the country.  While class actions are an increasingly large part of my practice, I don’t do exclusively class action work.  The rest of my practice involves litigating insurance coverage cases, often at the appellate level.  That also frequently takes me outside of Connecticut.  A highlight of my career thus far was working on Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, the U.S. Supreme Court’s first Class Action Fairness Act case.  I was Counsel of Record for Standard Fire on the cert petition, and had the pleasure of working with Ted Boutrous on the merits briefing and oral argument.

I started this blog because writing is one of my favorite things to do and I enjoy following developments in class action law, writing about them and engaging in discussion with others who have an in interest in this area.  It’s a welcome break from day-to-day practice, keeps me current, broadens my network and results in some new business.

When I’m not at my desk or flying around the country trying to save insurance companies from the plaintiffs’ bar, or attending a conference on class actions or insurance litigation (for more on those, see the Seminars/Programs page of this blog), I often can be found playing or reading with my young daughter, helping my wife with her real estate and mortgage businesses, reading a book about history or politics, or watching the Boston Red Sox (I managed to find bleacher seats for Game 2 of the 2004 World Series when Curt Schilling pitched with the bloody sock).  When the weather is good I also love to take the ferry to Block Island, Rhode Island and ride a bike or walk the trails there. If you go, I highly recommend the Clay Head Trail.