What is an “Injury in Fact” for FDCPA Standing?
When an Oak Park consumer faces harassment or other unfair or deceptive practices from a debt collection company, that consumer might consider filing a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The FDCPA prohibits certain actions by debt collectors and gives consumers the ability to file a federal claim in situations where a debt collector violates the law. Yet one of the requirements to have standing to sue under the FDCPA (and other federal statutes) is that the consumer must have suffered an “injury in fact” under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Without an “injury in fact,” the consumer’s complaint can be dismissed for lack of standing. A 2016 U.S. Supreme Court case, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (2016), made clear that a consumer must have suffered an injury that is “concrete” enough to be considered an “injury in fact.”
In applying Spokeo, several circuit courts have concluded that the consumer did have standing. However, a recent case out of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Buchholz v. Meyer Njus Tanick, PA (2020) ruled that a consumer’s anxiety about the possibility of impending legal action over debts is not sufficiently concrete to constitute an “injury in fact.” Although this case is not binding in Illinois, it is important to understand how the “injury in fact” requirement is being applied and how it could relate to future cases that are similar in Illinois.
Understanding the Spokeo Requirements for Standing
To have a claim under the FDCPA, a consumer must have an “injury in fact,” and that injury must meet two different requirements: a “particularization” requirement and a “concreteness” requirement. More specifically, to have standing to sue, the plaintiff must have “an invasion of a legally protected interest” that is “concrete and particularized.” In addition, the injury must be “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” To be clear, the injury must be both particular and concrete, and it must already have occurred or be likely to occur imminently. These requirements for standing arise out of a much earlier U.S. Supreme Court case, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992), which questions standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
In the Spokeo case, the U.S. Supreme Court had to determine whether the plaintiff had standing to sue. It took the case from the Ninth Circuit, which determined that the consumer’s injury was individualized and thus met the “particularization” requirement. Specifically, the injury “affect[ed] the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” However, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Ninth Circuit had not considered the issue of concreteness. The Court noted that, to be concrete, an injury does not have to be tangible. Moreover, it does not have to have actually happened, but it must be imminent.
Recent Spokeo Interpretations
What does the Spokeo decision mean for consumers in Oak Park? In short, it may be more difficult to show that a consumer has standing to sue under the FDCPA. While a number of circuit courts have determined that plaintiffs do indeed have standing under the Spokeo ruling, others have not. The recent case we mentioned above, Buccholz, led the Sixth Circuit to determine that the plaintiff did not have standing. It described the plaintiff’s injury (anxiety about legal action) as “an allegation of fear of something that may or may not occur in the future” and thus an injury that was not imminent.
While the case is not binding in the Seventh Circuit (where Illinois cases are heard), the Seventh Circuit has also ruled recently that a plaintiff does not have standing to sue under the FDCPA in Casillas v. Madison Avenue Associates, Inc. (2019). While the issue was slightly different in that case, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the debt collector’s failure to provide information had not resulted in a concrete injury in fact.
Seek Advice from an Oak Park Consumer Protection Lawyer
If you have questions about filing a claim under the FDCPA, an Oak Park consumer protection attorney can help. Contact the Emerson Law Firm for more information.
See Related Blog Posts:
Are Consumers in Generation Z Changing Debt Management Trends?
Consumer Debt Reaches New High
In applying Spokeo, several circuit courts have concluded that the consumer did have standing. However, a recent case out of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Buchholz v. Meyer Njus Tanick, PA (2020) ruled that a consumer’s anxiety about the possibility of impending legal action over debts is not sufficiently concrete to constitute an “injury in fact.” Although this case is not binding in Illinois, it is important to understand how the “injury in fact” requirement is being applied and how it could relate to future cases that are similar in Illinois.
Understanding the Spokeo Requirements for Standing
To have a claim under the FDCPA, a consumer must have an “injury in fact,” and that injury must meet two different requirements: a “particularization” requirement and a “concreteness” requirement. More specifically, to have standing to sue, the plaintiff must have “an invasion of a legally protected interest” that is “concrete and particularized.” In addition, the injury must be “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” To be clear, the injury must be both particular and concrete, and it must already have occurred or be likely to occur imminently. These requirements for standing arise out of a much earlier U.S. Supreme Court case, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992), which questions standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
In the Spokeo case, the U.S. Supreme Court had to determine whether the plaintiff had standing to sue. It took the case from the Ninth Circuit, which determined that the consumer’s injury was individualized and thus met the “particularization” requirement. Specifically, the injury “affect[ed] the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” However, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Ninth Circuit had not considered the issue of concreteness. The Court noted that, to be concrete, an injury does not have to be tangible. Moreover, it does not have to have actually happened, but it must be imminent.
Recent Spokeo Interpretations
What does the Spokeo decision mean for consumers in Oak Park? In short, it may be more difficult to show that a consumer has standing to sue under the FDCPA. While a number of circuit courts have determined that plaintiffs do indeed have standing under the Spokeo ruling, others have not. The recent case we mentioned above, Buccholz, led the Sixth Circuit to determine that the plaintiff did not have standing. It described the plaintiff’s injury (anxiety about legal action) as “an allegation of fear of something that may or may not occur in the future” and thus an injury that was not imminent.
While the case is not binding in the Seventh Circuit (where Illinois cases are heard), the Seventh Circuit has also ruled recently that a plaintiff does not have standing to sue under the FDCPA in Casillas v. Madison Avenue Associates, Inc. (2019). While the issue was slightly different in that case, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the debt collector’s failure to provide information had not resulted in a concrete injury in fact.
Seek Advice from an Oak Park Consumer Protection Lawyer
If you have questions about filing a claim under the FDCPA, an Oak Park consumer protection attorney can help. Contact the Emerson Law Firm for more information.
See Related Blog Posts:
Are Consumers in Generation Z Changing Debt Management Trends?
Consumer Debt Reaches New High
Comments
Post a Comment