Ninth Circuit Issues Decision on Article III Standing (Starbucks lawsuit)

Andy Serwin provides background and analysis of yesterday’s Ninth Circuit decision that plaintiffs had Article III standing in a lawsuit stemming from a stolen Starbucks laptop:

Standing is a key issue in privacy litigation, and it is an issue related to damages, though courts at times reach conclusions regarding standing that are inconsistent with their findings regarding damages. Standing is a constitutional issue under Article III, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the following three elements: 1. that it has suffered an injury in fact — an invasion of a legally-protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized; and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; 2. a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of — the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court; and 3. that it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. See, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).

Read more on Privacy & Security Source.

About the author: Dissent

Comments are closed.