Braitberg v. Charter Communications, Inc., 836 F.3d 925

Background

Braitberg subscribed to Charter in 2007, provided personally identifiable information (name, address, phone, SSN), and canceled service in 2010.
In 2013 he confirmed Charter retained his PII and alleged Charter’s uniform policy was to retain former customers’ PII indefinitely, beyond necessity for service, payment, or legal/tax/accounting needs.
He sued individually and as a putative class under 47 U.S.C. § 551(e), which requires cable operators to destroy PII when no longer necessary and no pending access requests or court orders exist.
He alleged two injuries: (1) direct invasion of statutory privacy rights and (2) economic loss because retention diminished the value of the services he purchased. He sought injunctive relief, statutory/punitive damages, and fees.
Charter moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing and failure to state a claim; the district court dismissed without prejudice, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing: Did Braitberg allege a concrete injury?	Violation of §551(e) itself is an injury-in-fact; no additional harm required.	Mere retention of PII without disclosure or misuse is only a bare procedural violation and not a concrete injury.	Held: No Article III standing — statutory violation alone, without concrete harm or risk, insufficient after Spokeo.
Economic injury: Did retention diminish value of purchased services?	Retention deprived consumers of the full monetary value they placed on control of their PII.	Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege any concrete effect on the value of services.	Held: Insufficiently pleaded economic injury; conjectural and not particularized.
Timeliness of appeal: Was the notice of appeal timely?	Not argued by plaintiff (he appealed and sought to treat dismissal as with prejudice).	Charter argued appeal was late because notice filed more than 30 days after docket entry; motion to modify was untimely.	Held: Appeal timely — Rule 58 separate-document requirement not satisfied, so judgment deemed entered 150 days later; premature notice nevertheless valid.
Scope of traditional privacy torts: Does lawful retention alone suffice as invasion of privacy?	Alleged statutory right mirrors common-law privacy interests.	Historically, retention of lawfully obtained information without disclosure is not a recognized tort/injury.	Held: Retention without disclosure or misuse traditionally does not give rise to a lawsuit; persuasive in finding no concrete injury.

Key Cases Cited

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (statutory violation alone may not satisfy Article III; injury must be concrete)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete and particularized, actual or imminent injury)
Hammer v. Sam’s East, Inc., 754 F.3d 492 (8th Cir. 2014) (pre-Spokeo view that statutory-right invasion can alone satisfy injury-in-fact)
Charvat v. Mutual First Fed. Credit Union, 725 F.3d 819 (8th Cir. 2013) (pre-Spokeo precedent on statutory injuries and standing)
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (standing principles; limits on representing generalized grievances)
Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381 (1978) (mechanical application of Rule 58 separate-document requirement for appeal timing)
Lupo v. R. Rowland & Co., 857 F.2d 482 (8th Cir. 1988) (courtroom minute sheet/docket do not satisfy Rule 58 separate-document requirement)
Chambers v. City of Fordyce, 508 F.3d 878 (8th Cir. 2007) (failure to set forth a separate document under Rule 58 does not invalidate an appeal)
Sterk v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, 672 F.3d 535 (7th Cir. 2012) (retention of PII without disclosure does not constitute injury if data remained secret until destroyed)
Quartana v. Utterback, 789 F.2d 1297 (8th Cir. 1986) (dismissal without prejudice can be a final, appealable order)