Whitney Hancock v. Urban Outfitters, Inc.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13548
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Whitney Hancock and Jamie White used credit cards at D.C. Urban Outfitters and Anthropologie stores; cashiers swiped cards, asked for zip codes, and entered the zip codes into the point-of-sale registers.
- Plaintiffs filed a putative class action under D.C.’s Identification Act (ban on requesting/recording addresses/phone numbers as a condition of accepting credit cards) and D.C.’s Consumer Protection Act (prohibits misrepresentations and deceptive practices).
- District court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), ruling a zip code alone is not an “address” under the Identification Act and that plaintiffs failed to allege transactions would have been declined absent zip-code disclosure under the Consumer Protection Act; the court did not resolve standing.
- Plaintiffs appealed. The D.C. Circuit held the appeal in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo v. Robins and then considered Spokeo’s standing guidance.
- The D.C. Circuit concluded plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they alleged only a statutory violation (being asked for/recorded zip codes) and no concrete, particularized injury (no privacy invasion, identity-theft risk, pecuniary or emotional harm).
- The court vacated the district court’s merits judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; it denied plaintiffs’ request on appeal to amend the complaint because they had not sought leave to amend below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing — whether plaintiffs suffered a concrete injury from being asked/recorded zip codes | Statutory violations under D.C. law suffice to confer injury; Congress (or D.C. Council) created rights whose invasion is injury | No concrete, particularized harm alleged; mere statutory violation is insufficient under Article III and Spokeo | No standing: plaintiffs alleged only a bare procedural/statutory violation without concrete, particularized injury; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction required |
| Scope of Identification Act — is a zip code an "address" protected by the statute | Zip codes are part of an address; requesting them violates the Identification Act’s ban on requesting addresses as a condition of card acceptance | A bare zip code is not the statutory "address" the Identification Act protects | Court did not reach merits because of lack of standing, but noted Spokeo forecloses treating mere statutory violation as injury-in-fact |
| Consumer Protection Act — whether request implied disclosure was required or was deceptive | Asking for zip codes falsely implied disclosure was required, omitted that it was optional, and was deceptive under the statute | Plaintiffs failed to allege that transactions would not have occurred absent zip-code disclosure or any concrete harm from the request | Not reached on the merits due to lack of Article III standing; district court’s merits judgment vacated and case remanded for dismissal |
| Amendment after dismissal with prejudice — whether plaintiffs could seek leave to amend on appeal | Plaintiffs asked to convert dismissal-with-prejudice to without-prejudice to amend complaint | Defendants noted plaintiffs never properly sought leave to amend in district court; appellate court should not grant first-time amendment relief | Denied: plaintiffs forfeited right to seek amendment on appeal because they failed to properly move to amend in district court |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (statutory violations must still cause a concrete, particularized injury to satisfy Article III)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requires injury-in-fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent)
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990) (standing doctrine identifies disputes appropriate for judicial resolution)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (standing is an essential element of jurisdiction)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (courts must resolve jurisdictional questions before reaching merits)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for complaints at motion-to-dismiss stage)
- Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) (legislature cannot nullify Article III standing requirements by statutory creation of rights)