By

Amy Lally

21 August 2017

Ninth Circuit Issues Long-Awaited Decision on Standing After Remand From Supreme Court

On August 15, 2017, the Ninth Circuit again addressed whether a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) constitutes a sufficiently concrete and particularized harm to satisfy Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement. In Robins v. Spokeo, No. 11-56843, the court found for a second time that plaintiff Thomas Robins had adequately alleged standing. Plaintiffs may cite this ruling to oppose motions to dismiss for lack of standing in other FCRA cases or cases alleging other statutory violations, but the actual impact of the opinion may be limited to cases involving closely similar facts.

(more…)

SHARE
EmailPrintShare
12 October 2016

Lessons for California Business Over Recorded Phone Calls

*This article originally appeared in L.A. Biz at bizjournals.com on Oct. 11, 2016.

Over the past few months, Taylor Swift and Kanye West’s feud over a recorded phone call has put the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) in the spotlight.

Who can record a call? What type of consent is needed? These questions are not just fodder for celebrity tabloids but fundamentally important issues for companies recording customer service calls.

CIPA, codified in California’s Penal Code Section 630 et seq., is an invasion of privacy statute originally designed to restrict wire-tapping and the recording of calls snatched from the airways at the dawn of the wireless telephone industry.

However, in recent years, plaintiffs’ lawyers have embraced Section 632.7 of the Act as a sword to attack companies that record customer service calls.

Read More

SHARE
EmailPrintShare
23 May 2016

Supreme Court to Ninth Circuit in Spokeo–Get ‘Real’ on Injury

This article originally appeared in the Bloomberg BNA Privacy and Security Law Report on May 23, 2016.

In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, decided May 16, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs who allege violations of statutes that contain a private right of action and statutory damages do not have automatic ‘‘standing’’ to sue. The Court instead found that to meet the constitutional requirement of standing, the plaintiff must establish not only the ‘‘invasion of a legally protected interest’’ defined by Congress, but also that the plaintiff suffered a “concrete and particularized” harm to that interest.

(more…)

SHARE
EmailPrintShare
XSLT Plugin by BMI Calculator