Stuart M. Gerson, a Member of the Firm in the Litigation and Health Care and Life Sciences practices, in the firm’s Washington, DC, office, was quoted in Law360, in “Attorneys React to Supreme Court’s Spokeo Ruling.” (Read the full version – subscription required.)
Following is an excerpt:
"The significance of Spokeo Inc. v. Robins lies not only in holding that the Ninth Circuit erred in failing to properly address the Article III standing requirement that an individual would-be class representative demonstrate a violation of a legally protected interest and that the injury ensuing is both 'concrete and particularized' as well as actual or imminent, not conjectural, but also in the fact that case produced a six-two majority in favor of the holding. Thus, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife will be enforced and an allegation of hypothetical, future injury is insufficient for an individual to mount a class action. Both liberals and conservatives have signaled an unwillingness to open the floodgates to class action cases where injury in fact cannot be shown. This is of particular importance in cyber data breach cases where such concrete injury rarely is addressed and the courts have been divided on standing."
