Spokeo Decision Interpreted Under FACTA, No Standing Found
When a consumer purchased food at a restaurant and discovered that her credit card receipt included the expiration date in violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (“FACTA”), she became the named plaintiff in a class action seeking redress. This prompted the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to consider for the first time after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the question of when does a bare procedural violation of a statutory right constitute an injury-in-fact sufficient for standing to bring suit in federal court in the context of FACTA? On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal. Guided by the unambiguous statutory language that a receipt with a credit card expiration date does not raise a material risk of identity theft, and finding that the bare procedural violation alleged by the plaintiff does not present a material risk of harm, the court concluded the plaintiffs’ allegations do not satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement necessary to establish Article III standing.