On April 22, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit held in Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc. that a plaintiff who claimed to have suffered a heightened risk of identity theft when the defendant printed a receipt containing too many digits of his credit card number suffered a concrete injury in fact, creating a circuit split on what type of injury a plaintiff must allege to establish standing to sue for a violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”). The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion is also notable for holding that a class member who objects to a non-mandatory class settlement has standing to appeal an order approving the settlement.
- In Muransky, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s approval of a class-action settlement, rejecting an objector’s argument that the named plaintiff lacked Article III standing to pursue a FACTA claim against the chocolatier.
- The court held that a heightened risk of identity theft constituted a concrete injury in this case because, by enacting FACTA, Congress elevated the risk of identity theft to the status of a concrete harm.
- Muransky reaches the...
