We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results:1-7 of 7

May 16, 2016Article III StandingPleading Injury-in-Fact
  • Mayer Brown
  • USA
  • May 16 2016

The Supreme Court today issued its decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, a closely-watched case presenting the question whether Article III’s


Supreme Court Holds in Spokeo that Plaintiffs Must Show “Real” Harm to Have Standing to Sue for Statutory Damages
  • Mayer Brown
  • USA
  • May 16 2016

The Supreme Court today issued its decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (pdf), a closely-watched case presenting the question whether Article III’s


U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins and decide whether plaintiffs who have suffered no concrete harm nonetheless have Article III standing to sue in federal court
  • Mayer Brown
  • USA
  • April 27 2015

Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, a plaintiff must allege that he or she has suffered an “injury-in-fact” to establish standing to sue in


Lack of standing in data privacy cases: not just a federal court defense
  • Mayer Brown
  • USA
  • July 31 2014

While data privacyespecially data breachcases in the United States have been on the rise for years now, most cases never make it past the pleading


Do plaintiffs have standing to sue over alleged reduction in the value of their personal data?
  • Mayer Brown
  • USA
  • May 3 2013

A key question in many privacy class actions is whether the plaintiff has suffered an injury sufficient to confer Article III standing. Quite a


California Supreme Court holds that diminished subjective value satisfies Proposition 64 standing limitations for unfair competition and false advertising actions
  • Mayer Brown
  • USA
  • February 3 2011

The California Supreme Court has held that consumers who allege that their subjective motivation for purchasing a product or service was affected by a deceptive label or advertising whether or not the alleged misrepresentation affected the market value of the product have standing to sue under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal.