On October 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit vacated a district court’s dismissal with prejudice of a pro se consumer’s FCRA suit against a consumer reporting agency, holding in an unpublished per curiam opinion that the consumer lacked Article III standing. The consumer alleged that the agency reinserted information into his credit report without timely notice, causing him emotional distress, business disruption, reputational damage, and lost time and effort. However, he did not dispute the accuracy of the reinserted information. The district court granted the consumer reporting agency’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the complaint failed to allege inaccurate reporting, a required element of the claim, and that further amendment would be futile.

Reviewing standing on its own initiative, the court said, the consumer alleged a statutory violation for untimely notice, but “a statutory violation is not itself an injury in fact”; a plaintiff must show concrete harm from the violation. Responding to his claims of emotional distress and lost time and effort, the court stated that the consumer “cannot manufacture standing” by expending time and effort to address “an otherwise harmless statutory violation about untimely notice.” Because the consumer alleged no concrete harm, the court vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.