Meyers v. Nicolet Restaurant of de Pere, LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22139

FACTA (2003 amendment to the FCRA) prohibits printing more than the last five digits of a card number or the expiration date on transaction receipts and provides a private right to statutory damages for willful violations.
On Feb. 10, 2015, Jeremy Meyers received a restaurant receipt from Nicolet Restaurant showing the card expiration date (i.e., not truncated).
Meyers filed a putative class action seeking statutory damages on behalf of patrons who received non-compliant receipts.
The district court found Rule 23(a) satisfied but denied class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) because individual issues predominated.
This appeal raises whether Meyers has Article III standing after Spokeo v. Robins; the court concluded Meyers lacked a concrete injury and therefore no Article III standing.
The Seventh Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (no need to reach class certification once standing failed).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Meyers has Article III standing for a FACTA receipt violation	Meyers: Congress granted a substantive right to receive a truncated receipt; statutory violation alone suffices for injury	Nicolet: Printing the expiration date caused no concrete harm or appreciable risk of harm	No standing: a bare statutory/procedural violation without concrete or imminent harm fails Spokeo's injury-in-fact requirement
Whether violation created a risk of identity theft sufficient for standing	Meyers: statutory purpose (prevent identity theft) implies risk from violation	Nicolet: Meyers discovered the violation immediately and nobody else saw the receipt; no increased risk	No appreciable risk shown; legislative findings (2007 Clarification Act) indicate expiration-date alone does not increase identity-theft risk
Whether Spokeo permits standing based solely on Congress creating a private right	Meyers: statutory right should be sufficient	Nicolet: Congress cannot elevate a bare procedural violation into Article III injury	Court: Spokeo controls—concreteness required; Congress’s creation of a right does not automatically confer standing
Effect on class certification and remedy availability	Meyers: seeks class statutory damages if standing exists	Nicolet: merits irrelevant if no jurisdiction	Court: jurisdictional defect (no standing) prevents certification; statutory damages remain available in future cases that allege concrete harm

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (concrete injury required for Article III standing even for statutory violations)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury)
Meyers v. Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wis., 836 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2016) (prior appeal dismissing claims against Tribe on sovereign immunity grounds)
Strubel v. Comenity Bank, 842 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2016) (procedural violation lacks standing absent connection to concrete interest)
Diedrich v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 839 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2016) (statutory violation alone insufficient for injury after Spokeo)
Hancock v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 830 F.3d 511 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (no standing where statutory violation alleged but no harm or risk shown)
Lee v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 837 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 2016) (no standing for ERISA claim absent harm)
Braitberg v. Charter Commc’ns, Inc., 836 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2016) (no standing where violation produced no harm)
Nicklaw v. Citimortgage, Inc., 839 F.3d 998 (11th Cir. 2016) (no standing where statutory timing violation caused no harm)
Perrone v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 232 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2000) (statutory damages appropriate where actual damages are small or hard to quantify)