Urban Outfitters Class Action Should Continue, Say Plaintiffs

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Plaintiffs in an Urban Outfitters class action lawsuit argue that a recent Supreme Court decision doesn’t affect their standing to sue.

Plaintiffs Whitney Hancock and Jamie White are appealing the dismissal of their claims against Urban Outfitters Inc. and Anthropologie Inc.

The plaintiffs claim these two retailers violated District of Columbia laws by collecting customers’ ZIP codes in conjunction with credit card purchases.

On appeal, Hancock and White argue that they continue to have standing to sue Urban Outfitters even after the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins which reportedly limits the kinds of harm plaintiffs may have standing to sue over.

In Spokeo, the plaintiff sued the search engine Spokeo Inc. for allegedly violating procedural requirements under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Supreme Court said that even when a statute like the FCRA creates a right to sue for failure to follow procedural requirements, a plaintiff still has to allege a “concrete” injury to establish standing.

On appeal, Hancock and White argue that they still have standing when suing Urban Outfitters for enforcement of procedural rights. Even under Spokeo, they argue, an injury doesn’t have to be tangible to be “concrete.” They contend that identifying just the risk of real harm may be enough to establish standing, and that violation of a private right may also give them standing to sue.

Hancock and White argue that the laws they are suing under, the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act and the Consumer Identification Information Law, both create private duties that Urban Outfitters and Anthropologie owe them. Violation of those duties gives the plaintiffs all the standing they need to bring this Urban Outfitters class action lawsuit, they claim.

In the alternative, the two plaintiffs are also asking the court to let them amend their pleadings so that they clearly allege concrete harm that would establish standing under Spokeo.

The Urban Outfitters class action lawsuit has been going on since June 2013. Hancock and White claim that the two retailers requested and stored customers’ ZIP codes in violation of consumer protection laws.

The plaintiffs allege that Urban Outfitters created the impression that divulging the ZIP code is required to complete the credit card transaction. They further claim that Urban Outfitters uses customers’ ZIP codes to track down their mailing addresses and use them for further marketing.

The claims were dismissed in March 2014. Urban Outfitters successfully argued that the applicable laws forbid the collection of a customer’s “address,” not their ZIP code alone.

The retailer stated that collecting just the customers’ ZIP code did not create the same risks for the consumer that collecting their full address would. Urban Outfitters also claimed it took particular precautions in the storage and handling of customer information to comply with consumer protection laws.

The plaintiffs are represented by Scott M. Perry and Mikhael D. Charnoff of Perry Charnoff PLLC.

The Urban Outfitters ZIP Code Class Action Lawsuit is Whitney Hancock and Jamie White v. Urban Outfitters Inc., et al., Case No. 14-7047, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.