Kelly v. Swarthout

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• no injury in fact from procedural violation of federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
• “A central inquiry . . . is whether the particular bare procedural violation may present a material risk of harm to the underlying concrete interest Congress sought to protect.” (emphasis added)
• “[E]xperts in the field agree that proper truncation of the card number,. . . regardless of the inclusion of the expiration date, prevents a potential fraudster from perpetrating identity theft or credit card fraud.” (citation omitted)
• “Guided by unambiguous statutory language that a receipt with a credit card expiration date does not raise a material risk of identity theft, . . . we conclude that allegations in her amended complaint do not satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement . . . .”
• “Guided by unambiguous statutory language that a receipt with a credit card expiration date does not raise a material risk of identity theft, . . . we conclude that allegations in her amended complaint do not satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement . . . .”
• inclusion of expiration date alleged insufficient injury in fact

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).