Concorde Inc News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

In the years following the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1549 (2016) — which held that "bare procedural violation[s], divorced from any concrete harm, [do not] satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III" — district courts have had to grapple with the question of standing under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., and in particular, what injuries resulting from an alleged violation of FCRA are sufficiently concrete to invoke Article III standing. This blog post discusses claims arising under Section 1681b(b)(1)...

In the years following the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1549 (2016) — which held that “bare procedural violation[s], divorced from any concrete harm, [do not] satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III” — district courts have had to grapple with the question of standing under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., and in particular, what injuries resulting from an alleged violation of FCRA are sufficiently concrete to invoke Article III standing. This blog post discusses claims arising under Section 1681...