Published Decision Rejects Industry Effort to Close California Courthouse Doors
Los Angeles, CA — Consumer Watchdog, working with a broad coalition of consumer protection and civil-rights organizations led by the UC Berkeley Center for Consumer Law & Economic Justice, welcomed today a published decision from the California Court of Appeal in Yeh v. Barrington Pacific, LLC, a case involving tenant background checks and the enforcement of California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA). The decision adopts the core position advanced by the consumer protection group in their amicus brief: that California consumers may enforce statutory privacy rights in state court even when corporate defendants argue that no additional “concrete injury” must be shown. In its decision, the court rejected industry attempt to graft federal Article III standing doctrine onto California law, reaffirming that California courts are courts of general jurisdiction and that standing is governed by legislative design, not federal constitutional limits.
As the court explained, “Unlike the federal Constitution, our state Constitution has no case or controversy requirement imposing an independent jurisdictional limitation on our standing doctrine.” The court further held that under the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA), “plaintiffs have standing to pursue their ICRAA claims because ICRAA permits those who experience a violation of their rights to recover $10,000 without proving concrete injuries.”
“This decision preserves a core principle of California law: when the Legislature grants consumers enforceable rights, courts do not get to erase them by importing federal standing barriers that do not apply here,” said William Pletcher, litigation director at Consumer Watchdog. “Had the defendants’ argument prevailed, it would have shut the courthouse doors on countless Californians seeking to enforce privacy, labor, and consumer-protection statutes.”
Why the Decision Matters
By rejecting efforts to narrow standing through judicial fiat, the decision ensures that companies cannot evade accountability for statutory privacy violations simply because the resulting harm may be difficult to quantify on an individual basis.
The ruling also reinforces the long-settled distinction between federal courts of limited jurisdiction and California state courts, which exist to provide a forum for enforcing rights created by the Legislature.
Consumer Watchdog will continue working with coalition partners to defend California’s consumer-protection and privacy laws and to oppose attempts to weaken them through procedural doctrines that conflict with state law and constitutional structure.
The published opinion now provides authoritative guidance statewide and confirms that California courthouse doors remain open to consumers seeking to enforce the rights the Legislature has granted them.
A Coalition Effort to Protect Privacy and Access to Justice
Consumer Watchdog joined the amicus brief alongside numerous nonprofit consumer, housing, civil-rights, and legal-services organizations because the implications of the case extended far beyond tenant screening or background checks.
Consumer Watchdog joined the amicus brief led by the UC Berkeley Center for Consumer Law & Economic Justice, and co-signed by the Center for California Homeowner Association Law, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, East Bay Community Law Center, Housing and Economic Rights Advocates, Impact Fund, Katherine & George Alexander Community Law Center, Open Door Legal, Public Counsel, Public Justice, Public Law Center, and the University of San Diego School of Law Legal Clinics. The coalition filed in support of tenants seeking to enforce California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act and to preserve access to California courts for consumers whose statutory rights have been violated.
