The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit announced its findings for a case concerning Article III. According to the case, a company allegedly disclosed an individual’s personal information to an intermediary without proper authorization. 

According to the plaintiff, the issue began when they received a letter from the defendant. The defendant attempted to collect upon an outstanding debt for medical services through this letter. Though from the defendant, a third-party service printed and mailed the letter. The defendant provided the third-party mailing with the plaintiff’s name, address, and other personal information. According to the plaintiff, she did not consent to the defendant sharing her information. As such, she claimed the defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). 

The plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the defendant in response to this alleged FCRA violation. She filed for herself and other Pennsylvania residents who received collection notices from the defendant through third-party mailing vendors. The plaintiff claimed she suffered stress and embarrassment, and the disclosures invaded her privacy and inflicted reputational harm.

However, the appeals court claimed this activity failed to establish Article III standing. As such, the Court has dismissed the case.

The defendant moved for dismissal for failure to state a claim with the district court. However, the Supreme Court did not consider this argument. The Supreme Court determined it lacked jurisdiction due to the finding that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The plaintiff appealed this decision, claiming she suffered concrete injury from the defendant disclosing her information to the vendor. The Court disagreed. 

The Third Circuit’s ruling drew inspiration from the Supreme Court ruling in a 2020 case. In this case, the plaintiff sought relief for intangible harms resulting from statutory violations. The Court found “that intangible harms can give rise to concrete injuries when they bear a close relationship to harms traditionally recognized as providing a basis for lawsuits in American courts.” However, the Third Circuit declared that the injury allegedly suffered by the plaintiff “is not remotely analogous to the harm caused by the tortious public dissemination of sensitive facts about another’s private life.” explained how the two did not equate.

Information shared between private intermediary parties without a likelihood of external dissemination cannot compare to a traditionally recognized harm that depends on the humiliation of public disclosure. As a result, the appellate Court upheld the district court’s ruling to dismiss the case.

Disclaimer:

Information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only and should not constitute as legal advice. We recommend you contact your own legal counsel for any questions regarding your specific practices and compliance with applicable laws.

Source

The post FCRA – Third Court Dismisses Claims of Injury Over Shared Disclosures appeared first on JDP.

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts has announced its decision for a case concerning Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) violations. The court declared that the case may proceed despite the plaintiff admitting it had caused no harm. 

The Cause

As such, the class action lawsuit will proceed against her former employer. In this case, the plaintiff claimed a pre-hire background check had failed to comply with the FCRA disclosure requirements. According to the case, the plaintiff had previously applied for a position as an emergency technician for an ambulance company. 

The company required her to sign a disclosure form and authorize them to perform a background check. According to the forms, the check could include a credit history review. However, the plaintiff claimed the disclosure contained extraneous language. One example concerns a waiver releasing the employer from liability that could result from the background check.

The Lawsuit

The plaintiff worked for the employer for approximately a year. Allegedly, she left following claims of sexual harassment. She then sued the company for discrimination and harassment. This decision evolved into a putative class action claiming the employer willfully violated the FCRA.

The latter case claimed that the employer’s deficient disclosure form violated the worker’s privacy rights. Furthermore, it failed to inform the plaintiff about the background check. The employer responded to the allegations by moving the case to the federal court and requesting a move for dismissal. 

The federal court granted the move and remanded the case to the state court. Once again, the employer moved for dismissal due to lack of standing. This success inspired the plaintiff to appeal, which led to a three-judge panel reversing the decision.

This panel found that Article III restrictions do not limit state courts unlike their federal counterparts. The panel reminded both parties that a plaintiff may sue for a statutory violation under Massachusetts law. However, the plaintiff must prove that they have suffered an injury, a statute will allow them to recover, and the state’s area of concern covers the injury.

The panel determined that these standing requirements would cover cases where technical violations of the FCRA occur regardless of actual harm. In this case, the plaintiff allegedly did not receive FCRA-compliant disclosures. Because the FCRA details recovery methods, the plaintiff may sue under state law. As such, the panel vacated the judgment. This decision allowed the plaintiff to proceed with their claims in the lower court.

Disclaimer:

Information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only and should not constitute as legal advice. We recommend you contact your own legal counsel for any questions regarding your specific practices and compliance with applicable laws.

Source

The post FCRA Case Proceeds Despite Lacking Concrete Harm appeared first on JDP.

October 4, 2023

The post Large Online Retailer Settles Suit for FCRA Violation appeared first on JDP.

August 11, 2023

The post Second Circuit Finds Legal Inaccuracy Could Result in FCRA Violation appeared first on JDP.