David Eisenberg was quoted in a recent Law360 article regarding the significance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Mach 22, 2016 ruling in Tyson Foods Inc. v. Bouaphekeo, where the High Court held that averages and other statistical analyses could be used to show similarities between disparate class members. Eisenberg commented as follows:
Court-watchers looking for broad guidance on Article III standing, and the “case or controversy” requirement, may be disappointed by this ruling. Although the parties and amici curiae had much to say about the Article III issue, the Court punted, concluding it was “premature” to address whether the class included members who suffered no injury, because they might well be screened out in a later stage of trial court proceedings. A more likely vehicle for analysis of the constitutional standing issue is Spokeo v. Robins, a Fair Credit Reporting Act case argued in November, where website provider Spokeo posted inaccurate information about Robins, but the information was generally of a positive nature, overstating the plaintiff’s educational and professional background.
Additional comments on the ruling from attorneys across the country are available online to Law360 subscribers.
Services: Employment & Labor