164 F. Supp. 3d 1032
N.D. Ill.2015Background
- Plaintiff Vincent Leung, an Illinois resident, received prerecorded automated calls from XPO Logistics (one before delivery, one post-delivery inviting him to complete a survey) and did not consent to the survey call.
- Leung sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), alleging the survey call violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).
- Leung alleged multiple injuries: lost time, aggravation/invasion of privacy, diminished battery life, wasted data storage, and paying for cellular service.
- XPO moved to stay the case pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo v. Robins and later moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, arguing Leung’s alleged injuries (other than a “bare statutory” violation) do not qualify as injury in fact.
- The district court previously denied a stay and, after briefing, addressed whether Leung’s non–bare-violation injuries establish standing.
- The court found Leung has standing based on lost time and aggravation/intrusion-on-privacy injuries, but not (on the present record) on lost money, lost battery life, or wasted data storage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Leung has Article III standing apart from a "bare" statutory violation | Lost time, aggravation/privacy invasion, diminished battery, wasted data, and paying for calls each constitute concrete injuries | Injuries are not traceable or concrete; any harm was self-inflicted (Leung stayed and completed the survey) or speculative | Standing exists based on lost time and aggravation/privacy invasion; other theories fail on current record |
| Whether time spent responding to the call is a concrete injury | Time spent tending to unwanted call is an injury in fact | Any time lost was voluntary and thus not fairly traceable to XPO | Lost-time injury is sufficiently concrete to confer standing |
| Whether emotional/aggravation/privacy harm from the call is an injury in fact | Intrusion, nuisance, or aggravation are legally protected dignitary/emotional interests | Emotional "feeling" alone may not suffice; plaintiff must show invasion of a legally protected interest | Aggravation/invasion of privacy plausibly allege a legally protected injury and confer standing |
| Whether alleged economic/physical effects (paying for call, battery drain, data/storage) confer standing | Those effects cause concrete harm (financial cost, battery depletion, data usage) | Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege or support that these caused actual harm or expense | Dismissed for now: lost money, battery life, and data-storage theories insufficiently pleaded or waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact)
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167 (concrete and particularized injury standard)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 742 F.3d 409 (issue whether bare statutory violation is injury)
- Silha v. ACT, Inc., 807 F.3d 169 (plaintiff bears burden to establish standing; facial vs factual challenges)
- ACLU of Ill. v. City of St. Charles, 794 F.2d 265 (time and inconvenience from defendant conduct can be injury)
- Brandt v. Village of Winnetka, 612 F.3d 647 (small injuries suffice for standing)
- Palm Beach Golf Ctr. v. Sarris, 781 F.3d 1245 (TCPA-related time/occupation of device can be injury)
- Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 572 F.3d 440 (standards for facial vs factual jurisdictional challenges)