District Court Weighs in on Article III Standing

A district court in Georgia has weighed in the issue of standing in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Spokeo v. Robbins.  In Rogers v. Capital One Bank, C.A. No. 1:15-cv-4016 (N.D. Ga. June 7, 2016), the consumers alleged that they received numerous calls in violation of the TCPA despite their requests that the creditor quit calling.  The Bank moved to dismiss alleging that the plaintiffs did not have Article III standing because the plaintiff had not alleged a particularized and concrete injury.  The court disagreed, holding that with respect to the TCPA, the Eleventh Circuit has already held that “Congress intended to create a concrete injury where the statute was violated, meaning so long as the plaintiff had been affected personally by the conduct that violates the statute, standing exists.”   The court continued that “[b]because the Plaintiffs allege that the calls were made to their personal cell phone numbers, they have suffered particularized injuries because their cell phones were unavailable for legitimate use during the unwanted calls.”  The implications of the decision are two fold.  The bad news is that, in the Eleventh Circuit, there is a likelihood that the Spokeo decision may not impact statutory TCPA claims.  The good news is that the court’s language suggests that with respect to who has standing to bring a TCPA claim may be limited to the person who is the primary user of the cell phone versus the subscriber.