May 03, 2019 Feature

Courts Split on Whether Receipts Confer Article III Standing

When statutory violation may be enough to meet the concrete injury requirement

By Kelso L. Anderson

A plaintiff who suffers only a statutory violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), but no tangible harm, may nonetheless meet Article III standing requirements to file suit in federal court, which requires an injury in fact.

Chocolatier may have violated FACTA's "injury-in-fact" demanded by Article III

Chocolatier may have violated FACTA's "injury-in-fact" demanded by Article III

Photo Illustration by Elmarie Jara | Getty Images

The decision in Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc. construes Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, in which the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned that “a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm, will not constitute an injury-in-fact as demanded by Article III.” Muransky departs from the decisions of other federal appellate courts on when and whether a FACTA violation meets Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement. ABA Section of Litigation leaders are likewise divided both as to whether Muransky properly interpreted Spokeo and whether other circuits will follow Muransky.

Premium Content For:
  • Litigation Section
Join - Now