Groshek v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.
865 F.3d 884
7th Cir.2017Background
- Groshek submitted job applications to Time Warner Cable and Great Lakes and signed the employers’ disclosure-and-authorization form, which included a clause stating a consumer report may be obtained plus additional extraneous language (e.g., a liability release).
- After Groshek applied, the employers obtained consumer reports from a third party.
- Groshek filed a putative class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), alleging the employers violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) (the stand-alone disclosure requirement) and, derivatively, § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii) (authorization), and that the violations were willful.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, arguing Groshek alleged only a bare procedural violation without concrete injury.
- The district court dismissed for lack of standing; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Groshek failed to allege a concrete informational or privacy injury tied to the statutory violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether receipt of a disclosure that includes extraneous language violates § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) and gives Article III standing | Groshek: a non-compliant disclosure itself is an informational injury and, because it preceded the authorization, negates valid consent and implicates privacy | Defendants: the statutory violation is a bare procedural error divorced from concrete harm because Groshek signed the form and does not allege confusion or lack of actual notice | Held: No standing — mere inclusion of extraneous language without factual allegations of confusion, lack of notice, or withheld information is a bare procedural violation and not a concrete injury |
| Whether an informational-injury theory (Akins/Public Citizen) applies when plaintiff received a disclosure | Groshek: analogizes to cases where plaintiffs were denied statutorily mandated information | Defendants: those cases involved a failure to provide information or to compel disclosure; here Groshek received the disclosure and did not request a compliant one | Held: Akins/Public Citizen inapplicable — those cases addressed denial of information and harms the statute sought to prevent, which are not analogous here |
| Whether the statutory scheme’s privacy interests (authorization requirement) supply standing where plaintiff signed the form | Groshek: the authorization requirement protects privacy and lack of a compliant disclosure undermines the validity of consent | Defendants: signing the form is inconsistent with alleging non-consent or a concrete privacy invasion | Held: No plausible privacy injury — conclusory allegation that authorization was invalid is insufficient where plaintiff admits signing the form |
| Whether Ninth Circuit precedent (Syed) requires a different result | Groshek: cites Syed to show similar allegations suffice for standing | Defendants: Syed turned on plausible factual allegations of confusion; Groshek has no such factual allegations | Held: Syed distinguishable; absent factual allegations of confusion or that Groshek would not have signed, Syed does not confer standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (intangible statutory violations must cause concrete injury; history and Congress’s judgment relevant)
- Akins v. Federal Election Comm’n, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) (denial of statutorily required public information can constitute concrete informational injury)
- Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989) (denial of information required by statute may be a concrete injury tied to the statute’s purpose)
- Meyers v. Nicolet Rest. of De Pere, LLC, 843 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2016) (statutory violation alone insufficient; must present appreciable risk to interest statute protects)
- Syed v. M-I, LLC, 853 F.3d 492 (9th Cir. 2017) (standing found where complaint plausibly alleged confusion by noncompliant disclosure and lack of valid consent)
- Gubala v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 846 F.3d 909 (7th Cir. 2017) (privacy rights violations are actionable)
- Safeco Ins. Co. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007) (FCRA’s purposes include fair and accurate reporting and consumer privacy)