Address History and "Injury-In-Fact"
Court denies background check company (or CRA)'s motion to dismiss class action lawsuit on the basis of the Supreme Courts holding in Spokeo v. Robbins related to address history reporting.
In Gambles v Sterling Infosystems, the plaintiff, Ralph Gambles alleges the background check company, or consumer reporting agency, furnished a potential employer a report that contained "outdated, duplicative, misleading, and adverse" information in regards to his address history. However, Sterling Infosystems filed a motion to dismiss the case on June 22, 2016 on the basis of the Supreme Court's holding in Spokeo v. Robbins. The background check company argues the plaintiff does not have standing to bring a lawsuit because he does not prove cognizable harm or injury-in-fact.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the background screening company's motion to dismiss on February 13, 2017.
"The court found Sterling's demand for a traditional tangible injury was misplaced because the reporting at issue was akin to the long-held common law permitting claims based on the unauthorized disclosure of a person's private information or false or misleading adverse information. The court held Gambles' alleged harms fell within those contours, with his claim alleging the unauthorized release of private information and the false reporting of adverse information. The court also based its holding on Congress's creation of a substantive right to not have outdated adverse information reported, which was the harm described by Gambles. From those general maxims, the court denied Sterling's motion, finding Gambles had adequately alleged facts showing a concrete injury for Article III standing purposes." - Troutman Sanders LLP
Please read more by clicking here. "Court Denies Background Screener's Spokeo Motion Related to Address History Reporting" by Ross D. Andre, David N. Anthony, and Alan D. Wingfield | Troutman Sanders LLP | Mondaq