Charter, Former Customer Both Cite Spokeo Decision in Federal Appeal
The Supreme Court reaffirmed in last month's Spokeo v. Robins decision that violating a federal statute can provide the basis for standing, with the violation needing only to result in "particularized" and "concrete" harm -- exactly the type of harm…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
plaintiff Alex Braitberg suffered at the hands of Charter Communications, his counsel responded Wednesday in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Spokeo also made clear that some statutory violations constitute Article III injury, Braitberg said. The filing was in response to a previous Charter citation arguing Spokeo confirmed Braitberg lacked Article III standing since his allegation that Charter violated a Cable Act requirement that cable operators destroy personally identifiable information when it's no longer needed for the reason it was collected is divorced from any concrete harm. Braitberg -- a former Charter subscriber who sued in 2013 after finding out such data as his Social Security and credit card numbers were still on record with the company -- is appealing a decision by a U.S. District judge in St. Louis to throw out his initial lawsuit on the basis for lack of Article III standing.