Appellate Court Reaffirms That Consumers Can Sue Over Legal Violations of Federal Statutes in State Court, Even Without Proving Personal Harm
Berkeley, CA — The Center’s Open Door Project has helped secure a fifth major appellate victory in a row in the fight to preserve California consumers’ access to the courts. In Askins v. CRST Expedited, Inc., the First District Court of Appeal reaffirmed that consumers do not need to show personal harm beyond a company’s violation of the law itself in order to sue in California state court. Crucially, the Court explained this standard is the same regardless of whether the statute at issue is a state or federal law.
The Askins lawsuit was brought as a class action on behalf of job applicants and employees against CRST, a large trucking company that allegedly ran background checks without complying with the disclosure and authorization provisions of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). After the trial court certified that the lawsuit could move forward as a class action, a court of appeal in Fresno decided Limón v. Circle K Stores, concluding that plaintiffs must show a concrete injury separate from the legal violation — a much stricter standard borrowed from federal courts. Bound by Limón, the trial court decertified the class, effectively gutting the case.
The First District reversed that outcome, holding that when a law, like FCRA, creates specific legal rights and does not require proof of actual harm, a plaintiff can sue simply because those rights were violated — the harm is the violation itself. In reaching this holding, the Court adopted the standing arguments the Center advanced in its amicus brief filed in the case and joined a line of cases — Kashanian, Chai, Parsonage, and Yeh — where the Center made similar arguments and the California appeals courts, including the First District, upheld access to justice, pushing back against an ongoing industry effort to make it harder for people to hold companies accountable.
“This decision is a meaningful win for California workers and consumers,” said Ted Mermin, executive director of the Center for Consumer Law & Economic Justice. “When big corporations don’t follow the law, people shouldn't have to prove they suffered some other kind of harm just to have their day in court. This decision sends a strong message that in California courts, the law means what it says.”
The decision in Askins marks an important milestone. First, the First District extended the reasoning in Kashanian, Chai, Parsonage, and Yeh to federal statutes. These four published opinions all dealt with state laws; they did not address what would happen when a federal statute was at issue, as it had been in Limón. The First District filled this gap and answered the question directly: “California’s approach to standing does not vary depending on whether it is considering a state or federal statute.”
Second, Askins is the first appellate case to directly confront Limón and reach a different decision on the identical legal issue. Such a clear split among the courts of appeal may prompt the California Supreme Court to settle the question definitively. Until then, Askins stands as crucial authority protecting California consumers’ and workers’ right to hold companies accountable in state court for breaking consumer protection laws — whether federal or state.
“Terry Askins and his entire legal team deserve praise for their courage and skill in bringing this case and navigating it to this critical victory,” Mermin added. “They believed that California courts would be governed by the rule of law, not the rule of vibes. And they were right.”