Episode 345 -- Raytheon Pays $950 Million to Resolve Fraud, FCPA, ITAR and False Claims Act Violations
The ‘Long Arm’ of CIPA and Its Newfound Pen-Trap Claims
Episode 119 -- The Ericsson FCPA Settlement
On July 18, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the notion that plaintiffs can “manufacture” Article III standing by identifying “self-inflicted harm” such as “expenditure of money and wasted time to correct an otherwise...more
In a revised opinion issued September 8, 2022, an en banc panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed last year’s controversial opinion which potentially spelled trouble for debt collectors utilizing third-party...more
In line with the recent trend of courts giving increased scrutiny to standing in consumer finance cases, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal this week under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”)...more
Last Thursday, the Seventh Circuit issued its fourth opinion in two years addressing Article III standing in the context of Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The court handed the plaintiff in Thornley v....more
In Ramirez v. Trans Union, the Ninth Circuit addressed whether, at the class certification stage of a putative class case, only the named plaintiff or all class members must have Article III standing (i.e., a concrete injury...more
In an important opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s ruling that plaintiffs in the ongoing Facebook biometric privacy class action have alleged a concrete injury-in-fact to confer Article III standing and that...more
The Third Circuit recently held that procedural violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”), absent any showing of concrete harm, do not meet Article III standing requirements. Kamal v. J. Crew...more
In a precedential opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded that because the named plaintiff in a class action complaint failed to allege a concrete injury...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held, for the first time, that a mere procedural violation of a statute does not present the material risk of harm that a plaintiff must allege to establish Article III...more
On September 10, 2018, in Long v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit joined the chorus of recent circuit court opinions tackling the question of...more
In St. Louis Heart Center v. Nomax, Inc., the Eighth Circuit held that an “alleged failure to provide a technically compliant opt-out notice” in a fax advertisement, without more, does not give a plaintiff Article III...more
On May 14, 2018, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a significant jurisdictional decision that further limits defendants’ use of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016). In Collier v. SP Plus Corp., No....more
Spokeo v. Robins – which confirmed that a plaintiff’s allegation of a defendant’s statutory violation without accompanying concrete harm fails to satisfy Article III’s “case or controversy” requirement – has brought the issue...more
In keeping with its recent decision in Bassett v. ABM Parking Services, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in Noble v. Nevada Checker Cab (March 9, 2018) that alleged procedural violations of the Fair and...more
Class action litigation is a rapidly developing area of the law. Here are the top five trends to keep an eye on as we approach the new year...more
In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the Supreme Court clarified the requirements necessary for plaintiffs to establish standing. The Court held that an allegation of a statutory violation, without some showing of concrete harm, is...more