BlogLine

Labcorp v. Davis: Pivotal SCOTUS decision may reshape the future of data breach class actions

5/30/25

By: Justin J. Boron, David A. Cole, Fredrick A. Hagen and Kevin M. Ringel

The future of data breach and consumer privacy class actions may hinge on the U.S. Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision in Labcorp v. Davis. At issue is whether a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) can be certified when some class members lack Article III standing. The outcome will be especially significant for defendants in data breach litigation, where plaintiffs often seek to certify sweeping classes that include individuals who suffered no concrete injury. A ruling that narrows standing at the certification stage could dramatically reduce the scope and viability of such claims.

The case arises from a lawsuit by visually impaired patients alleging that Labcorp’s self-service kiosks violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The 9th Circuit allowed class certification to proceed despite evidence that not all class members had experienced the alleged harm, deepening a split among the circuits. Several appellate courts require all class members to establish standing, while others permit certification so long as a named plaintiff has standing and uninjured members can be addressed later. The U.S. Supreme Court’s resolution of this divide could reshape how defense counsel challenge class certification at its earliest stages. 

The Court’s decision could significantly impact class action litigation. A ruling requiring standing for all class members would provide a powerful tool to limit overbroad and speculative class actions, especially in the context of data breaches where alleged harms are often diffuse or nonexistent. FMG’s Data Breach Class Action litigation team continues to monitor this case closely and remains on the cutting edge of legal developments to protect the interests of businesses navigating these high-stakes class actions. 

For more information, please contact Kevin M. Ringel (kevin.ringel@fmglaw.com), Fredrick A. Hagen (fred.hagen@fmglaw.com), Justin J. Boron (justin.boron@fmglaw.com) or David A. Cole (david.cole@fmglaw.com).

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.