Silha v. ACT, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for lack of Article III standing plaintiffs-students’ putative class action alleging that, as part of plaintiffs taking ACT examination, defendants sold or licensed plaintiffs’ personally identifiable information (PII) to third-party educational organizations under circumstances where plaintiffs were unaware at time they consented to said disclosure of fact that defendants would be receiving $.33 per student, per buyer for said PII. Instant complaint failed to adequately plead elements of injury in fact arising out of defendants’ alleged misconduct, where there was no allegation that plaintiffs had lost anything of value as result of defendants' alleged misconduct. Fact that defendants allegedly obtained gain as result of their actions did not require different result, since: (1) standing under Article III required allegations based on plaintiffs’ losses; (2) plaintiffs had consented to sending of PII to third-parties; (3) fact that defendants received fee from third-parties did not make plaintiffs worse off; and (4) plaintiffs otherwise did not allege how defendants’ profiteering deprived them of economic value of their PII.