Krukas v. Aarp, Civil Action No. 2018-1124

Background

AARP-branded Medigap policies are issued by UnitedHealthcare under a group policy held by AARP Trust; AARP (through ASI) helps market and administer the program and receives a negotiated 4.95% payment characterized as a "royalty."
State regulators set and approve Medigap rates; plaintiffs concede the premiums they paid were the regulator-approved total price and that they received the coverage they contracted for.
Plaintiffs Krukas and Kushim allege AARP mischaracterized or concealed the 4.95% payment (calling it a royalty, not a commission), unlawfully kept money without a broker license, and thereby violated the D.C. CPPA and committed conversion, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent concealment.
After extended discovery and denial of an earlier motion to dismiss, defendants moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs sought class certification, which was stayed pending resolution of summary judgment.
The district court concluded plaintiffs presented no evidence of a concrete, particularized injury (no overcharge, no showing a lower-priced comparable Medigap policy was available), and therefore lacked Article III standing; summary judgment granted and class-certification motion denied as moot.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing — concrete injury	Plaintiffs say AARP extracted and retained money they never bargained to pay (monetary loss) and deprived them of truthful information that would have led them to buy cheaper coverage	Defendants say plaintiffs paid the regulator-approved premium and received the bargained-for insurance; no separate overcharge occurred and thus no cognizable injury	Court: No standing — plaintiffs received the agreed premium and coverage; no concrete, particularized monetary injury shown
Conversion / unjust enrichment / restitution	Plaintiffs seek return of the 4.95% as money wrongfully taken or retained	Defendants: the 4.95% is part of the negotiated premium allocation between United and AARP, not an extra fee taken from consumers	Court: Unjust enrichment/conversion remedies do not create standing where plaintiffs received the benefit of the bargain and show no individualized loss
Informational/disclosure harm (comparison-shopping)	Plaintiffs argue failure to disclose magnitude/nature of payment distorted purchasing decisions and deprived them of the opportunity to buy cheaper comparable policies	Defendants: plaintiffs conceded some disclosure existed; plaintiffs offer no evidence a cheaper comparable policy was available or that disclosure would have changed the outcome	Court: Alleged informational injury is too attenuated absent evidence a cheaper alternative existed or that disclosure would have caused a different decision; no standing
Standing for injunctive relief	Plaintiffs seek prospective relief to change AARP practices	Defendants: no threatened or imminent injury; plaintiffs (esp. Kushim) remain enrolled and have full knowledge, so no likelihood of future harm	Court: No standing for injunctive relief — plaintiffs cannot show imminent or likely future injury

Key Cases Cited

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) (Article III injury-in-fact requirements for statutory and informational harms)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent injury)
Dane v. UnitedHealthcare Ins. Co., 974 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2020) (rejecting similar challenge to AARP Medigap royalty for lack of concrete injury)
Jeffries v. Volume Serv. America, Inc., 928 F.3d 1059 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (statutory informational disclosure harms compared to common-law breach-of-confidence)
In re APA Assessment Fee Litigation, 766 F.3d 39 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (consumer plausibly pleaded overpayment from misleading fee characterization)
Hancock v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 830 F.3d 511 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (CPPA plaintiff must allege a cognizable injury)
Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 140 S. Ct. 1615 (2020) (no Article III standing where plaintiffs lack concrete stake in outcome)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (informational injuries must be concrete to support standing)