Our colleague Erik Zimmerman reported in an earlier post the memorable declaration from defense counsel in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021): when a legal violation results in no harm, those involved should “break out the champagne,” not “break out a lawsuit.”
In TransUnion, decided in 2021, the Supreme Court grappled with a question that has vexed federal courts in recent years: how much leeway should plaintiffs have to bring federal suits based on “intangible harms”? Article III courts have been redressing obvious harms to person and pocketbook since the ...
About Class Actions Brief Blog
Class Actions Brief is your source for analysis of class action developments in federal and state judicial systems nationwide. Our attorneys use their experience representing clients both in and against class actions to provide fresh takes and commentary on what is happening in our courts today.
Topics
- Antitrust
- Appeal
- Appeals
- Arbitration
- Bankruptcy
- Choice of Law
- Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)
- Class Counsel/Attorney's Fees
- Class Definition
- Class Representatives
- Collective Action
- Commonality
- Commonality/Predominance
- Consumer Protection
- Damages
- Data Privacy
- Due Process
- Employment
- Expert
- Jurisdictional Issues
- Manageability
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- Recent Filings
- Securities
- Settlement
- Standing
- Standing/Mootness
- Statute of Limitations
- Tolling
Jurisdictions
- All Jurisdictions
- D.C. Circuit
- District of South Carolina
- Eastern District of North Carolina
- Fifth Circuit
- Fourth Circuit
- Legislation
- Middle District of North Carolina
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina Business Court
- North Carolina State Courts
- North Carolina Supreme Court
- Northern District of Georgia
- Other
- Seventh Circuit
- Sixth Circuit
- South Carolina State Courts
- Tenth Circuit
- Third Circuit
- United States Supreme Court
- Western District of North Carolina
