Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Spokeo, Inc., Petitioner v. Thomas Robins
Case Number:
17-806
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Firms
- Consovoy McCarthy
- Deutsch Hunt
- Foley & Lardner
- Hudson Cook
- Jenner & Block
- Mayer Brown
- Stroock & Stroock
Companies
- Consumer Data Industry Association
- Retail Industry Leaders Association Inc.
- Spokeo Inc.
- TransUnion LLC
Sectors & Industries:
-
January 22, 2018
Spokeo Standing Fight Won't Go Another Round At High Court
The U.S. Supreme Court won't rethink the Article III standing bar it set in its landmark 2016 Spokeo decision in a dispute over alleged inaccuracies on a credit report, rejecting a petition from Spokeo Inc. to resolve what it called "widespread confusion" over what types of intangible injuries can establish standing.
-
January 05, 2018
TransUnion, Chamber Back Spokeo's High Court Standing Bid
Spokeo on Friday received a swell of support in its bid to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit Article III standing issues in its dispute over alleged credit reporting inaccuracies, with TransUnion, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others arguing the justices' input was again necessary to clear up widespread "chaos and confusion."
-
January 01, 2018
Cybersecurity & Privacy Cases To Watch In 2018
The U.S. Supreme Court is gearing up to decide a pair of blockbuster privacy disputes that will set the bar for access to cellphone location records and data stored overseas, while lower courts will have their hands full with the continued fallout from the high court's Spokeo decision and the scope of the Federal Trade Commission's data security authority. Here, cybersecurity and privacy attorneys flag several litigation fights that will bear watching in 2018.
-
December 21, 2017
Spokeo Standing Row Doesn't Need A Redo, High Court Told
The man suing Spokeo for allegedly reporting inaccurate information about him on Wednesday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to refrain from taking up the dispute over Article III standing for a second time, arguing that the high court had made clear what harm was necessary for standing in its ruling in the case last year.