The Supreme Court recently threw out the decision made by the Ninth Circuit
Court in the case of
Spokeo Inc. v. Thomas Robins, which held that a plaintiff does not have a legal right to sue simply
by alleging bare, technical violations of statute. On Monday, May 16,
2016, SCOTUS ruled 6-2 in favor of the business community, including the
collection and credit industry. As you may recall from our previous blogs,
the key issue in the Spokeo case was whether a violation of federal law,
without proving concrete harm, is enough to warrant a lawsuit.
The Supreme Court has ordered the Ninth Circuit to re-review the case,
having determined that their analysis was incomplete because it only focused
on how the statutory violation personally affected the plaintiff rather
than on whether the violation caused any concrete harm. Robins had argued
that the incorrect information contained in his Spokeo listing harmed
his job prospects and directly violated the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, which was created to ensure that the information companies report on
people is accurate. The case was originally dismissed in district court
because there was no proof of actual harm – in fact, most of the
errors reported by Spokeo were considered favorable to the plaintiff.
The Courts’ consideration of this matter directly affects federal
laws including the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Furthermore, inconsistency in the application of these laws has also
subjected the credit and collection industry to liability.
For more information on the case of
Spokeo Inc. v. Thomas Robins, click below to view our blogs:
Contact Sulaiman Law Group, LTD for more information on your rights under the FCRA, TCPA, and FDCPA.