In a recent published decision, the Fifth Circuit declined to articulate a rule for the “order and depth in which” it “grapples with constitutional standing and the Rule 23 inquiry.” Chavez v. Plan Benefit Services, Inc., __ F.4th __, No. 22-50368, 2023 WL 5160393 (5th Cir. Aug. 11, 2023). The court concluded that the plaintiffs—three employees who participated in health and retirement plans administered by the defendants—had standing to sue on behalf of absent class members who participated in thousands of different benefits plans administered by the defendants. The court went on to affirm the district court’s certification of two classes, each under both Rules 23(b)(1)(B) and 23(b)(3).
Article III Standing
Eleventh Circuit Updates Its Article III Standing Analysis
By Jeffrey Huberman & Andrew Soukup on
This blog previously covered the Eleventh Circuit’s July 2022 decision in Drazen v. Pinto, which held that all class members must have Article III standing in order to receive individual damages in a class settlement. 41 F.4th 1354 (11th Cir. 2022). Because the law in the Eleventh Circuit at the time held that a…
Eleventh Circuit Holds Having Payment Information Posted to Dark Web Establishes Standing in Data Breach Case, Remands Class Certification Order
By Amy Heath & Kathryn Cahoy on
Last week, the Eleventh Circuit reversed in part and remanded an order certifying a class in a case arising from a data breach of Chili’s restaurants, Green-Cooper v. Brinker International, Inc., No. 21-13146, 2023 WL 4446420 (11th Cir. July 11, 2023). The opinion clarifies the Eleventh Circuit’s view of when data breaches give rise to Article III standing.…
A Closer Look: Courts Reject California Wiretap Claims Based on Website Chat Features
By Amy Heath & Kathryn Cahoy on
Late last year, our colleagues highlighted a wave of class action litigation asserting novel claims under state wiretap laws against website operators that use session replay software and chatbots on consumer websites. Federal district courts in California have now ruled on the first round of chatbot cases, most brought by a handful of “tester” plaintiffs under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Cal. Penal Code §§ 630 et seq., and have nearly uniformly rejected the claims. These initial favorable rulings should be helpful for defendants facing similar claims.…
Eleventh Circuit Analyzes Article III Standing in Class Action Settlement Context
By Amy Heath on
The Eleventh Circuit recently addressed two aspects of Article III standing relevant to class action settlements: the standing of a class member to object, and the standing of class representatives to seek injunctive relief—and thus whether such injunctive relief should be given any weight as part of the approval process.…
Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit Analyzes Article III Standing in Class Action Settlement Context
Eleventh Circuit to Reconsider Standing Decisions
By Jeffrey Huberman on
The Eleventh Circuit is poised to reconsider recent standing decisions favorable for defendants seeking to invoke Article III’s standing requirements to defeat class certification.
At issue is the Eleventh Circuit’s July 2022 decision in Drazen v. Pinto, holding that (i) all class members must have Article III standing in order to receive individual damages (whether through a settlement or otherwise), and (ii) the standing determination is decided under Eleventh Circuit law, even where certain class members do not reside within the Eleventh Circuit’s geographic boundaries and may have standing under other circuit precedent. 41 F.4th 1354, 1360–61 (11th Cir. 2022). The dispute in Drazen arose in the context of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), and addressed both unwanted phone calls and text messages. While a settlement in Drazen was pending, the Eleventh Circuit held in Salcedo v. Hanna, 936 F.3d 1162, 1168 (11th Cir. 2019), that, contrary to precedent in other circuits, a single unwanted text message was not sufficient to give rise to Article III standing under the TCPA. Because the panel was bound by Salcedo, and because the proposed class definition in the Drazen settlement included individuals whose sole harm was an unwanted text message, those individuals did not have standing. The panel therefore vacated the district court’s approval of the settlement.…
Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit to Reconsider Standing Decisions
Eleventh Circuit, Sitting En Banc, Reverses Panel Decision And Holds FDCPA Plaintiff Lacks Standing
By Amy Heath on
The Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, recently applied TransUnion to hold that a plaintiff lacked Article III standing to bring claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 19-14434, 2022 WL 4102824 (11th Cir. Sept. 8, 2022)(en banc). The en banc decision reversed a controversial panel decision allowing a plaintiff to sue a collection agency for disclosing information about his debt to the agency’s mail vendor.…