Frank v. Gaos.

• Author: Kunnirickal, Joseph
• Position: Standing and class action settlement

139 S. CT. 1041 (2019)

In Frank v. Gaos, the Supreme Court vacated the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's judgment affirming the district court's approval of a settlement agreement of a class-action claim, and remanded to the lower courts to determine whether or not the plaintiffs established Article III standing. (1) In a class-action suit, plaintiffs must establish standing in order for a court to approve the settlement and render it binding. (2) The underlying suit was brought against Google by a class of plaintiffs, including Paloma Gaos, who alleged that Google violated the Stored Communications Act ("SCA") by using referrer headers. (3) Gaos also asserted numerous state law claims. (4) The SCA has a provision creating a private right of action, so in concluding that the plaintiffs had standing, the trial court relied on Edwards v. First American Corp., which held that when a statute creates a private right of action, the plaintiff only needs to allege that the defendant violated the statute to establish Article III standing. (5) However, in light of the Supreme Court's holding in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, which abrogated the ruling in Edwards, the Supreme Court reviewed whether or not the plaintiffs had established an injury sufficient to establish Article III standing. (6)

1. BACKGROUND

   The SCA prohibits an internet service provider from knowingly divulging the contents of a communication stored by that service provider to any person or entity (7) and creates a private right of action for any person to recover from a person or entity that engaged in a violation of the Act. (8)

   The complaints alleged that when an Internet user searched certain terms in Google and clicked on a hyperlink to open a webpage listed on the search results page, Google sent information, including the terms of the search, to the server that hosted the selected webpage. (9) This information is contained in a referrer header, and tells the server that the user arrived at the webpage by searching certain terms on Google. (10)

   In the district court, Google motioned to dismiss the suit for lack of standing. (11) The district court denied Google's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' SCA claims. (12) The district court, relying on Edwards, concluded that Gaos had alleged an injury sufficient to establish standing because the SCA created a private right of action and Gaos alleged a violation of the SCA that was specific to her, as the claim was based on...