Two receipts from an Arizona Walgreens have set the stage for a legal showdown in Illinois, where the state’s high court is poised to hear a case with broad implications for who has standing to sue in the Land of Lincoln.
Since the named plaintiff didn’t suffer a “concrete” harm—her identity wasn’t stolen and she suffered no financial loss—she lacks standing and affirming class certification would make Illinois a magnet for wide-ranging, expensive “no-injury” suits, Walgreens said.
In response, the plaintiffs say the violation of a statutory right is itself a harm that can be remedied in Illinois courts. The state isn’t bound by US Supreme Court case law that narrowed standing for federal claims, they argue.
It’s important to ensure state courts remain independent entities, “open forums for consumers to be able to bring actions that allege a violation of their rights,” said attorney Lucia Goin of Public Justice, which filed an amicus brief.
Attorneys are set to argue before the justices on Wednesday.
Definition of ‘Harm’
The case stems from a transaction at a Walgreens in Phoenix, where Calley Fausett used cash to reload her prepaid debit card. Afterward, she got receipts that featured the first six and last four digits of the card number.
Under the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, or FACTA, receipts for card transactions—and, Fausett argues, receipts for cash reloads of prepaid cards—can’t include more than the last five digits of a card number, a measure intended to cut down on fraud.
Fausett filed a class complaint in Lake County, Ill., where the drugstore giant is headquartered, saying the inclusion of the extra digits put her at risk of identity theft.
A trial court judge certified a nationwide class; when Walgreens appealed, a state appellate panel rejected their claim that Fausett didn’t have standing. The Illinois Supreme Court is now tasked with deciding whether the class certification was properly granted.
Walgreens frequently cites the US Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in TransUnion v. Ramirez, which found that someone must be “concretely harmed” by a statutory violation to sue a private entity in federal court.
Goin, of Public Justice, said the violation of Fausett’s FACTA rights in itself is a harm.
“The legislature said having too many digits of your debit or credit card number printed on this receipt is a violation of your rights under this law,” she said. “And so we think that the harm here is the violation. The presumption is, when the legislature enacts a law and that law has been violated, that you can sue to recover in court.”
Fausett’s brief points to the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., which found plaintiffs can sue under the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act even if they suffered no adverse effect besides the violation of their rights under that law.
“Rosenbach’s holding that a violation of an individual’s statutory rights alone is sufficient to bring suit in Illinois is the opposite of TransUnion, and consistent with Illinois standing law over the last 100 years,” their brief states.
Lawsuit ‘Magnet’
Walgreens, conversely, argues Illinois has a tradition of requiring “concrete injury-in-fact.” The state appellate court’s rejection of that argument “sends the message that there is a side door for statutory no-injury claims in Illinois,” its brief states, urging the Supreme Court to “close that door.”
The brief repeatedly warns that deciding in Fausett’s favor would open the floodgates, arguing that granting her standing is “certain to make Illinois a magnet for no-injury FACTA plaintiffs that have been turned away by federal and state courts around the country.”
The Illinois Defense Counsel, which is composed of civil defense attorneys, filed an amicus brief citing its “substantial interest in maintaining efficient litigation procedures that avoid burdensome and unnecessary lawsuits.”
The certified class is extremely broad, said Connor Fitch of Brown Hay & Stephens, which represents the IDC as amicus.
“It’s not really tethered to the bounds of people getting wronged in any sort of way, like common-law torts are typically thought of,” he said. “It’s really just the bounds of how many times can a receipt or a transaction that creates a receipt take place, and then if it’s the same violation every time, that’s how you get to the extremely large liability amount and class size,” he said.
The IDC’s brief, citing TransUnion, urges Illinois justices to find that “unharmed” plaintiffs don’t have proper standing, and argues that separation-of-powers principles require the executive branch to enforce statutory compliance in those situations, not plaintiffs or their attorneys.
FACTA, Fitch said, “encroached on the federal executive branch’s authority to have some discretion when it comes to which civil cases they decide to pursue, which people they term to be injured. And that is not limited or usurped by state standing standards.”
The scope of the TransUnion decision will likely make its way to the US Supreme Court “sooner rather than later,” he said.
“Whether it’s this case or another case, the US Supreme Court is going to clarify whether or not federal laws that do not have an injury-in-fact requirement are facially invalid for encroaching on executive authority,” he said.
Fausett is represented by Keogh Law, Croke Fairchild Duarte & Beres, Bret Lusskin of Golden Beach, Fla., and Scott Owens of Hollywood, Fla. Walgreen Co. is represented by Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila and Aronberg Goldgehn Davis & Garmisa.
The case is Fausett v. Walgreen Co., Ill., No. 131444, oral arguments scheduled 9/17/25.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story: