In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, courts and litigants alike have been trying to determine the contours of constitutional standing when it comes to procedural violations of consumer protection statutes. In late November the District Court for the Central District of California weighed in, finding in favor of consumer standing. In the case of Rodriguez v. El Toro Investors Ltd.
The plaintiff alleged that that the defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by procuring a consumer report without presenting her with a background check disclosure form that complied with the statute. Specifically, Rodriguez claimed that El Toro Investors’ disclosure form included a liability waiver that ran afoul of the FCRA’s requirement that the disclosure “consist solely of the disclosure” that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes.
El Toro moved to dismiss the action under the theory that, even if Rodriguez had received an improper disclosure, she had not suffered any “concrete injury-in-fact” sufficient to confer constitutional standing. The court disagreed.
