Defending No-Injury Class Actions Post-Spokeo: Standing for Statutory Violations, State Court Litigation, and CAFA Removal

The Supreme Court’s Spokeo decision confirmed that the injury-in-fact requirements for Article III standing for class action plaintiffs require that the plaintiff suffered a concrete and particularized injury as opposed to a bare allegation that a consumer protection or privacy statute had been violated.

Since Spokeo, a few circuit courts have weighed in on this issue with somewhat conflicting results as to when Article III standing does, and does not, exist.

As no-injury cases are dismissed in federal court cases, plaintiffs now look to file these claims in state courts, venues not traditionally favorable to defendants. An unintended consequence of the Spokeo ruling may be its defeat of CAFA removal to federal court when defendants are faced with “no-injury” class actions filed in state court.

Listen as our authoritative panel examines the impact of Spokeo on Article III standing for no-injury class action claims, defending no-injury class actions in state court and navigating the impact of Spokeo on CAFA removal.

1. Overview of Spokeo ruling
2. Review of the potential impact of Spokeo on
3. Circuit court cases addressing standing when a plaintiff files a claim alleging violation of a federal statute
4. No-injury claims in state court
5. Impact of Spokeo on CAFA removal

The panel will review these and other key issues:

• How have the circuit courts interpreted what constitutes an injury post-Spokeo?
• How have lower courts addressed the issue of standing when a plaintiff files a claim alleging a violation of a federal statute?
• Has the Spokeo ruling rendered CAFA meaningless because the ruling deprives defendants of the ability to defend a “no-injury” class action in federal court?