The United States Supreme Court has denied a petition seeking review of a Seventh Circuit decision holding that a consumer lacked Article III standing to challenge an alleged violation of the Fair and Accurate Transactions Act where the defendant retailer printed more than the last five digits of his credit card number and the expiration date on a credit card receipt.

In the petition, the plaintiff alleged that the decision was at odds with recent Ninth Circuit authority over what constitutes a “concrete injury” under the Supreme Court’s 2016 FCRA decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.  The petition stated:  “Federal courts are split as to whether the credit card truncation requirements of FACTA are mere procedural requirements, the violation of which is insufficient on its own to confer standing, or whether an individual whose credit card information was improperly truncated has already suffered a concrete injury before any further harm results from the violation … .  Answering this question will not only resolve the split as to FACTA, but it will more broadly clarify this court’s opinion in Spokeo for the numerous circuit and district courts that have disagreed over its interpretation.”  The Supreme Court denied the petition without elaboration.

The case is one of hundreds of district court and circuit court decisions to address the impact of Spokeo on consumer standing.  While these issues continue to get resolved in the lower courts in varying ways, the Supreme Court has so far resisted revisiting the issue.

 We will continue to monitor developments under Spokeo