Article III Standing

Owning a product that might malfunction isn’t enough for Article III standing—the defect must actually manifest. That’s the message from Glasscock v. Sig Sauer, Inc., __ F.4th __, 2026 WL 2054200 (8th Cir. July 16, 2026), where the Eighth Circuit vacated class certification and dismissed the case after the named plaintiff admitted his firearm had never malfunctioned.

Continue Reading No Misfire, No Case: Eighth Circuit Decertifies Gun-Defect Class Action Over Standing

Standing remains a powerful defense to putative class actions.  Recently, a New Jersey federal court relied on Article III standing to dismiss a lawsuit against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc. alleging that it made false and misleading representations about the safety and efficacy of certain cholesterol drugs despite initiating a recall of…

Continue Reading New Jersey Court Dismisses Complaint in Recalled Drugs Suit for Lack of Article III Standing

A federal court recently addressed whether plaintiffs alleging misleading commercial email practices in violation of Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (“CEMA”) have Article III standing to pursue claims. The ruling suggests that alleged violations of CEMA, standing alone, could constitute a concrete injury for Article III standing, where the asserted…

Continue Reading Washington Anti-Spam Law Decision Addresses Article III Standing in CEMA Cases

In a consolidated putative class action arising out of an alleged data breach, In re A-Line Staffing Solutions Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No. 24-cv-11917 (E.D. Mich. May 27, 2026), a Michigan district court declined to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) but granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds.  The decision exemplifies a theme in such data breach cases: even where plaintiffs clear the Article III standing hurdle, their allegations may still fail to state a claim.

Continue Reading Standing Found, But Negligence Fails: Eastern District of Michigan Dismisses Data Breach Claims for Lack of Causation

The Third Circuit continues to draw a firm line on Article III standing in website “wiretapping” cases.  Just weeks after the court’s decision in Harriet Carter Gifts, the court has issued yet another decision reinforcing that the alleged collection of data through third party tools does not create a concrete injury unless the tools capture truly sensitive, identifying information.

Continue Reading Third Circuit Addresses Standing in Website Wiretapping Claims—Again

We have routinely highlighted the proliferation of wiretapping class actions, and the variety of approaches courts have taken to address them.  One common pitfall for plaintiffs in these types of cases is standing, an issue highlighted in a recent Third Circuit case throwing out a proposed federal class action against Harriet Carter Gifts and NaviStone Inc., and remanding it to state court.  

The case, Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts, Inc., No. 25-1760 (3d. Cir. 2026), involved plaintiff’s allegations that Harriet Carter Gifts and NaviStone tracked her browsing activity on Harriet Carter’s website while she shopped for pet stairs, purportedly in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act.  After removal, the district court twice granted summary judgment for the defendants, and both decisions were appealed to the Third Circuit. 

Continue Reading Stand Aside:  Third Circuit Throws Out Harriet Carter Gifts Federal Wiretapping Case On Standing Grounds

Courts continue to grapple with the type of “concrete harm” that is required to confer Article III standing under TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), particularly in data breach and privacy class actions.  On October 14, the Fourth Circuit contributed to this debate, holding that allegations that plaintiffs’ driver’s license data had been leaked and appeared on the dark web were sufficient to establish standing.

Holmes v. Elephant Ins. Co., — F.4th —, 2025 WL 2907615 (4th Cir. 2025), started with a 2022 data breach of Elephant Insurance Company’s networks.  Id. at *1.  Plaintiffs were Elephant customers whose driver’s license numbers were compromised in the breach.  Id.  They sued Elephant for alleged harms stemming from the breach.  Id. at *3.  Two plaintiffs specifically alleged that they had found their driver’s license numbers on the dark web; the others did not.  Id. at *2.  The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims, holding that none of the alleged injuries were sufficient to confer standing.  Id.  But the Fourth Circuit disagreed in part, reversing the lower court’s dismissal of the two plaintiffs who alleged that their driver’s license information appeared on the dark web, but affirming dismissal of the other two. 

Continue Reading Standing in the Dark:  Fourth Circuit Finds Standing for Driver’s License Information on the Dark Web

A federal court in North Carolina dismissed a putative data breach class action against Bojangles because the plaintiffs failed to show that there was an actual or imminent misuse of their personal information as a result of the breach.  Dougherty v. Bojangles’ Restaurants, Inc., 2025 WL 2810673 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 2025).

Continue Reading Federal Court Fries Data Breach Class Action for Lack of Standing

Whether the presence of uninjured class members can defeat class certification is a hot-button topic in class action litigation.  Just four days after the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis regarding whether class certification is permissible under Rule 23(b)(3) when some members of the putative class are uninjured (we described this case here), the Sixth Circuit affirmed class certification in Pickett v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, despite defendant’s argument that up to twenty percent of the class did not suffer an economic injury.  — F. 4th —-, 2025 WL 1622110 (6th Cir. June 9, 2025).
Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Affirms Class Certification Despite Potential Presence of Class Members Who Did Not Suffer Economic Injury

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis presented a question central to modern class action litigation: whether class certification is permissible under Rule 23(b)(3) when some members of the putative class are uninjured. We previously highlighted the Supreme Court’s decision to hear argument in the case, which had the potential to resolve a widening circuit split on this issue—some courts have held that uninjured class members preclude certification entirely, others ask whether uninjured class members can be identified and excluded without requiring predominance-defeating “mini-trials,” and others (incorrectly, in our view) defer the inquiry until later stages of the case unless a “great many” of the class members are uninjured.  Despite its clear interest in resolving this split, the Supreme Court ultimately determined that Laboratory Corporation had too many procedural quirks to reach the question presented, holding in an 8-1 decision that certiorari was “improvidently granted” and dismissing the appeal.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Delays Resolution of Uninjured Class Member Debate