The Illinois Supreme Court issued an impactful ruling on standing that will likely change the landscape of fee-shifting claims based purely upon statutory harm. View the full decision in Fausett v. Walgreen Co.
In Fausett v. Walgreen Co., 2025 IL 131444, the state’s highest court found that a plaintiff must have a concrete, non-speculative injury in order to have common-law standing for claims based on federal statutes. In doing so, the court made a nuanced distinction between statutory standing where a statute specifically includes a private right of action versus all other claims, the latter of which require common-law standing.
In this case, Fausett brought a single claim for a violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), a subset of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The court held that because the FACTA is silent as to who may bring a cause of action, Illinois’ common-law standing requirement must apply.
As Fausett had admitted to suffering nothing beyond purely speculative injuries, the court held that Fausett had failed to establish she had common-law standing for her FACTA claim to represent a nationwide class.
Accordingly, the court remanded the case and instructed the lower court to dismiss Fausett’s claims for lack of common-law standing.
Although the ruling is limited to FACTA claims, the court’s reasoning extends to all claims lacking actual injury, depending on the statutory text of each.
GRSM’s Consumer Financial Services team is closely evaluating all Illinois state court cases involving statutory damage claims to assess the leverage provided by the Supreme Court’s long-anticipated ruling.