Blog

We are proud to share that attorney Emily Connor Kennedy recently joined consumer protection lawyers from across the country at the NACA/NCLC Spring Training Conference, a premier educational gathering co-hosted by the National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA) and the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC). Emily was invited to speak on a panel addressing one of the most consequential issues in consumer litigation today: Article III standing for jurisdiction in federal courts.

Why Article III Standing Matters in Consumer Litigation

For consumers seeking to enforce their rights under federal statutes, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the courthouse door swings on a single hinge: standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Standing in federal court requires a “concrete and particularized” “injury in fact” that is “fairly traceable” to the defendant’s conduct and likely to be “redressable” by a favorable decision.

Since the Supreme Court’s decisions in Fair Credit Report Act case Spokeo v. Robins and, more recently, Fair Credit Reporting Act case TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, the standing analysis has become a battleground in every federal circuit. Defendants increasingly use standing as both a sword and a shield — moving to dismiss in some circuits while removing cases to federal court in others, often depending on which forum offers the most favorable standing posture.

The Circuit Split: Same Statute, Different Outcomes

A central theme of Emily’s panel was the divergence among the federal circuit courts in how they apply post-Ramirez standing principles. The same alleged violation can produce very different outcomes depending on which circuit hears the case.

The panel examined how the federal circuits have charted different paths on key questions in credit reporting cases, including:

• What constitutes a sufficiently “concrete” intangible harm
• How courts treat emotional distress and time spent responding to violations
• The procedural posture issues that arise when defendants remove a case and then challenge standing

The differing opinions mean that, for practitioners, a thorough, circuit-specific standing analysis is essential and should start during the very first steps of intake.

Continuing Our Commitment to Consumer Advocacy

Speaking engagements like this one reflect our firm’s ongoing commitment to advancing consumer rights and supporting the broader community of attorneys who fight for consumers every day. The NACA/NCLC Spring Training Conference brings together the most experienced consumer litigators in the country, and we are honored that Emily was invited to share her insights with this audience.

If you believe your rights as a consumer have been violated — or if you are an attorney seeking to discuss strategy on a federal consumer protection matter — please contact our office to learn how we can help.

The content of this blog post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice about your specific situation, please consult a qualified attorney.