On October 5, 2016, two district courts came to opposite conclusions on whether putative class action plaintiffs had standing to bring claims based on prospective employers’ failure to comply with Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) disclosure requirements.
In Moody v. Ascenda USA Inc., the Southern District of Florida held that plaintiffs had alleged in their suit under the FCRA an injury sufficient to confer Article III standing. The Moody plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, their employer, failed to comply with FCRA disclosure requirements by not providing a stand-alone disclosure, although they acknowledged that a “Disclosure and Authority to Release Information” document had been provided and signed.
However, on the same day, the Northern District of California dismissed the same and similar claims in Nokchan v. Lyft, Inc., holding that the plaintiff did not have standing and explicitly rejecting informational injury and invasion of privacy standing arguments.
The conflicting decisions highlight the fact that the Supreme Court may have to revisit Spokeo to further resolve conflicts across the country over whether technical FCRA are sufficient to confer standing.