Class Actions

Subscribe to Class Actions via RSS

On November 20, the Illinois Supreme Court narrowly construed private rights of action under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), creating a de facto “concrete injury” requirement for claims under the FCRA and potentially other federal statutes with similar language authorizing rights of action. Although Article III’s concrete-injury requirement has become familiar in federal courts over the last decade, Illinois courts had not previously imposed such a requirement in cases involving statutory rights of action. The court in Fausett v. Walgreen Co., held that the FCRA does not explicitly authorize consumers to sue for violations, so the law did not authorize consumer lawsuits unless the consumer could show that a violation caused them a concrete injury. This ruling will significantly narrow consumers’ ability to bring no-injury claims under similar statutes in Illinois state courts.

Key point: Courts are concluding that not all data breaches should result in a lawsuit. Businesses need to consider causation and damages when responding to an incident and take steps to determine if there is no evidence of harm or traceability including on a class wide basis.

In a recent decision, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, upheld the dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed against First National Collection Bureau, Inc. (FNCB). In an unpublished opinion, the court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). This decision clarifies the scope of third-party communications under the FDCPA, particularly in the context of using third-party vendors for mailing collection letters.

Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Empower Finance’s motion to compel arbitration in a class action lawsuit concerning its earned wage access (EWA) product, Cash Advance. In Vickery v. Empower Finance, Inc., the court found that Empower’s Cash Advance product was “credit” under the Military Lending Act (MLA) making Empower’s arbitration agreement unenforceable under the MLA, which prohibits arbitration agreements for consumer credit extended to active-duty service members and their dependents.

On September 15, the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington reversed a lower court’s decision in Aaland v. CRST Home Solutions, LLC (CRST), holding that unsolicited text messages sent to recruit independent contractors qualified as “commercial” messages under the state’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA). The decision vastly expands the scope of the state statute.

In a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court reversed a district court’s ruling and compelled arbitration in the case of Massel v. Successfulmatch.com dba Millionaire Match. The appellate court concluded that the plaintiff consumer received reasonably conspicuous notice of the Service Agreement (containing the arbitration clause), to which the plaintiff assented by checking the box required for account creation and continued use of the website.

In a significant ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s state law claims against a federal credit union on federal preemption grounds. The putative class action plaintiff’s claims challenged the credit union’s $15 dollar returned-check fee under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), arguing it was an “unfair” and “unlawful” business practice, especially since the check the plaintiff deposited was declined without any funds being made available to him. The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling that the plaintiff’s state law unfair competition claim was preempted by 12 C.F.R. § 701.35, which states expressly that state laws regulating bank fees do not apply to federal credit unions.

In a significant ruling today, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its 6-3 opinion in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, addressing the scope of judicial review under the Hobbs Act. The decision marks a pivotal moment in administrative law, particularly concerning the deference required to agency orders in enforcement proceedings. While the Supreme Court previously addressed whether the Hobbs Act applied in private litigation, it ultimately did not resolve whether a district court is required to follow a particular Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order interpreting the TCPA.

On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, leaving unresolved a significant question regarding class-action certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The question presented (and left unanswered by the majority) in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (Labcorp) v. Davis was whether a federal court may certify a damages class that includes both injured and uninjured class members. The dismissal has sparked considerable debate, particularly highlighted by Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent, which provides a compelling argument against the court’s dismissal.