On May 16, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Thomas Robins, holding that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling applied an incomplete analysis when it failed to consider both aspects of the injury-in-fact requirement under Article III. The Court found that a consumer could not sue Spokeo, Inc., an alleged consumer reporting agency that operates a “people search engine,” for a mere statutory violation without alleging actual injury.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Finds Consumers Must Prove Injury in Class Actions

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog, on March 19, 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled that stipulations by a named plaintiff on behalf of a proposed class prior to class certification cannot serve as the basis for avoiding federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Limits Plaintiffs Ability to Cap Damages Prior to Class Certification

The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in a FISA case is likely to have a significant impact on privacy and data breach-related class actions, possibly thwarting the ability of individuals affected by breaches to assert standing based on a fear of possible future harm.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Finds Lack of Standing to Challenge Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Sorrell v. IMS Health, Thomas Julin, partner at Hunton & Williams LLP who represented IMS Health in the case, closely studied the Court’s decision to assess its implications, including with respect to other forthcoming legislation. Julin discusses these implications in an interview and in an article published by BNA’s Privacy and Security Law Report.

Continue Reading How the Supreme Court’s Decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health May Affect Forthcoming “Do Not Track” Legislation

On June 23, 2011, in a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled in IMS Health Inc. v. Sorrell that a Vermont law that prohibited the sale of prescriber-identifiable data to drug companies was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Strikes Down Vermont Prescriber Privacy Law

Thomas Julin, partner at Hunton & Williams LLP, discusses the Sorrell v. IMS Health litigation in an interview with Fred Cate, Senior Policy Advisor of the Centre for Information Policy Leadership. Mr. Julin represents IMS Health in the case, which concerns the constitutionality of a Vermont law prohibiting pharmacies from selling prescriber-identifiable information to third parties.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Sorrell v. IMS Health