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
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
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
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
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