Procedural FCRA Violation
There are three requirements for Article Three of the United States Constitution, which are the requirements that a plaintiff has the standing to sue. They are as follows: Injury-in-fact, Causation, and Redressability The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has held Article III standing that procedural violations of the FCRA do not constitute actual harm and therefore do not meet the first requirement of injury-in-fact. The court cited the Supreme Court and itself in prior decisions, including Robins v. Spokeo (2017), in which the court stated "a court must ask: (1) whether the statutory provisions at issue were established to protect [the plaintiff’s] concrete interests (as opposed to purely procedural rights), and if so, (2) whether the specific procedural violations alleged in [the] case actually harm or present a material risk of harm to, such interests." Please read more here: Procedural FCRA Violation without Harm is Insufficient for Standing, 9th Circuit Rules | by Hanley Chew & Tyler G. Newby | Fenwick & West LLP
