Defendant conducted background checks of plaintiff in connection with plaintiff’s employment application. Plaintiff filed a class action alleging that defendant performed background checks “absent legally compliant disclosures and authorization forms,” thereby violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The trial court decertified the class based on Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 671, which held that a plaintiff must demonstrate concrete injury from FCRA noncompliance to have standing. Plaintiff appealed.
The Court of Appeal reversed, disagreeing with Limon and holding that the FCRA does not require a plaintiff to demonstrate concrete injury to have standing to sue in California. The court noted that “California courts . . . are not constrained by [the U.S. Constitution] Article III[] case-or-controversy requirement,” even when addressing issues of federal law, that “[f]or causes of action based on statute . . . . standing is determined by the language of the statute itself along with the underlying legislative intent and statutory purpose,” and that “the Legislature may authorize the recovery of statutory damages or penalties without the concrete harm required in federal court.” The court then concluded that the legislative history of the FCRA indicated Congress’s “intent to allow recovery [under the FCRA] even absent apparent injury . . . .”
The Askins decision creates a direct conflict with the Limon decision that may be of interest to the California Supreme Court.
