Since the Supreme Court’s decision in
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), courts have grappled with what constitutes a sufficient injury in fact to satisfy Article III standing requirements.
Predominant Issues has regularly reported how the lower courts have sometimes diverged in their conclusions about the types of injuries that are “concrete” versus merely “speculative” (see previous
Spokeo reporting here). Most recently, the Northern District of California has entered the fray, concluding that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring claims against Apple for alleged privacy violations that the court deemed overly speculative.
In
Lopez et al. v. Apple, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Apple for alleged violations of various state and federal privacy laws. Plaintiffs owned Apple iPhones that came pre-installed with Siri, a virtual assistant trained in voice recognition.
מדינות ה־G-20 שואפות להגיע להסכם על מס חברות עולמי השנה
globes.co.il - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from globes.co.il Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
The Ethics of Opt-Out Donation Increases
philanthropy.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from philanthropy.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.