Data Breach Class Actions: Analyzing Standing for Future Injuries-in-Fact (Part 3)

In 2023, federal appellate courts have notably adhered to a more demanding approach to plaintiffs’ standing in class action lawsuits, aligning with the precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez. A growing number of federal circuit decisions emphasize one consistent TransUnion requirement: the necessity for plaintiffs to demonstrate concrete and specific evidence of harm throughout all litigation stages. 

This article continues to explore the evolving landscape of standing requirements and their impact on the feasibility and strategy of class actions in the Eleventh Circuit. Specifically, it focuses on two pivotal cases from the Eleventh Circuit – Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC and Green-Cooper v. Brinker International Inc. – which provide valuable insights into the importance of context and demonstrate the court’s commitment to upholding Article III standing requirements.  

The Eleventh Circuit Continues to Require More from Plaintiffs

As was the case pre- and post-TransUnion, the Eleventh Circuit plays a pivotal role in applying recent Supreme Court decisions to high-profile class actions. Eleventh Circuit decisions have consistently focused on whether plaintiffs have satisfied Article III standing. The following decisions underscore that, for more putative class members than ever before, the answer is “No.” 

All Class Members Must Have Redressable Injuries to Settle

Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC centered around the legitimacy of a class-action settlement and the plaintiffs’ standing to pursue injunctive relief [1]. The case stemmed from allegations that Reckitt Benckiser LLC used misleading statements in advertising their “brain performance supplements,” resulting in false advertising claims. The Eleventh Circuit examined whether the named plaintiffs had the necessary standing to support the injunctive relief component of an $8 million class settlement approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

To answer this question, the court focused on whether the plaintiffs had demonstrated an “actual or imminent” injury requiring injunctive relief. It found that the plaintiffs had only shown past harm and had not established a likelihood of future harm. Because the plaintiffs had no concrete plans to repurchase the products, their alleged future injuries were deemed “conjectural or hypothetical.” This lack of imminent harm led the court to conclude that the plaintiffs lacked the standing necessary for the injunctive relief sought in the settlement. The district court’s approval of the settlement, partially based on this injunctive relief, was deemed an abuse of discretion and vacated.

Williams underlies the Eleventh Circuit’s emphasis on concrete evidence of ongoing or imminent harm for plaintiffs seeking relief in class action settlements. This decision will likely also influence plaintiffs in future class action litigations within the Eleventh Circuit, particularly in cases involving claims for injunctive relief. Plaintiffs in such cases will need to reassess the structure and feasibility of their claims to ensure that they demonstrate a real and immediate threat of future injury rather than relying solely on past harms to establish standing. 

Lack of Causation Defeats Standing and Class Certification

Green-Cooper v. Brinker International Inc. involved a class action against Brinker, the owner of Chili’s restaurants, following a cyber-attack that compromised customers’ credit and debit card data [2]. The plaintiffs alleged that their personal information was accessed and disseminated by cybercriminals. The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision to certify the class, focusing on two issues related to Article III standing: the predominance of common issues over individual ones and the method of calculating damages for the class.

The court found that only one of the three named plaintiffs met the criteria for Article III standing based on the alleged misuse of their personal data, specifically its sale on the dark web. The other named plaintiffs failed to establish causation, as their visits to Chili’s occurred outside the affected date range of the data breach. Additionally, upon further scrutinization, the court found that the plaintiffs’ proposed calculation of damages was complex enough to make class damages too individualized across the class. 

As a result, the court partially vacated the class certification and remanded the case to the district court. It instructed the lower court to clarify its findings on the predominance of common issues, particularly regarding the class definition, which included anyone whose data was accessed by cybercriminals and the computation of damages for the class. 

Green-Cooper will likely impact the approach to more complex class action lawsuits in the Eleventh Circuit, especially those involving data breaches. The ruling emphasizes the importance of plaintiffs demonstrating clear causation for all representative plaintiffs and highlights the need for trial courts to scrutinize individual standing more closely in complex circumstances like data breaches, where individual harms and the need for specific redress may vary significantly among class members.

Conclusion

On one hand, Williams and Green-Cooper demonstrate that the foundation of the Eleventh Circuit’s approach to scrutinizing plaintiffs’ standing remains clear: concrete and specific evidence of harm or injury. On the other, practitioners are quickly learning the next layer of that foundation: the evidence must be present not only at the commencement of the lawsuit but consistently throughout all stages of litigation, including class settlement approval and certification. 

These decisions highlight the court’s focus on ensuring that only plaintiffs with a direct, personal stake in the outcome are permitted to proceed, thereby upholding the integrity of the legal process and adherence to constitutional requirements. As plaintiffs face a higher bar to establish standing, these cases help shape the landscape of class actions in the Eleventh Circuit, requiring them to present stronger evidence of ongoing or imminent harm, causation, and individualized harm from the outset of the case to its conclusion. 

If you face the prospect of a class action lawsuit and want to understand your case, the merits of your claim or defense, potential monetary awards, or the amount of exposure you face, you should speak with a qualified Jimerson Birr lawyer. Our experienced team of attorneys is here to help. Call Jimerson Birr at (904) 389-0050 or use our contact form to schedule a consultation.

[1] 65 F.4th 1243 (11th Cir. 2023).

[2] 73 F.4th 883 (11th Cir. 2023).

Continued reading in the series:

Data Breach Class Actions: Analyzing Standing for Future Injuries-in-Fact (Part 2)

Data Breach Class Actions: Analyzing Standing for Future Injuries-in-Fact (Part 1)