583 F.Supp.3d 1209
W.D. Wis.2022Background
- Plaintiff Mary Clark Nabozny sued Optio Solutions, LLC under the FDCPA, alleging Optio shared her debt information with RevSpring, a third-party letter-processing vendor.
- The shared data included existence of the debt, amount owed, alleged creditor, and Nabozny’s name and address.
- Nabozny invoked 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b), which restricts debt collectors from communicating with most third parties without consumer consent; RevSpring is not an expressly permitted recipient.
- Optio moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing Nabozny suffered no concrete injury in fact and thus lacks standing.
- The court applied Lujan/Spokeo/TransUnion framework: an intangible statutory violation is actionable only if it causes or poses an appreciable risk of harm to a concrete interest Congress sought to protect.
- The court held that disclosure to a clerical vendor is not equivalent to public disclosure, is unlikely to cause the kinds of privacy harms Congress targeted (e.g., disclosures to friends, neighbors, or employers), and dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nabozny has Article III standing (concrete injury) from Optio’s disclosure of debt data to a third-party vendor | RevSpring disclosure violated FDCPA privacy rights; intangible privacy invasion is a concrete harm Congress intended to protect | No tangible harm; sharing with a clerical vendor is a bare procedural violation and not akin to public disclosure that causes concrete harm | No standing: disclosure to a subcontractor is not the kind of public or appreciably risky privacy invasion that creates a concrete injury under Spokeo/TransUnion; dismissal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete and particularized injury)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robbins, 578 U.S. 330 (procedural statutory violations are not automatically concrete; courts must assess concrete harms)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (intangible harms are concrete only if closely related to historical harms or Congress identified real risk of harm)
- Wadsworth v. Kross, Lieberman & Stone, Inc., 12 F.4th 665 (7th Cir.) (statutory violation must harm or present appreciable risk to the concrete interest Congress sought to protect)
- Persinger v. Sw. Credit Sys., L.P., 20 F.4th 1184 (7th Cir.) (alleged harms must align with specific historical tort theories)
- Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 17 F.4th 1016 (11th Cir.) (contrasting appellate decision holding vendor disclosures can create standing; discussed but noted as vacated for rehearing)