A District Court in Washington dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim for statutory damages because they failed to give pre-suit notice under the CCPA.  The Court dismissed the request for statutory damages without prejudice meaning Plaintiffs can give notice (despite the pending action) and then seek to amend and add back in a request for statutory damages.
Plaintiffs … insist that they seek statutory damages under the CCPA. But Plaintiffs have not provided pre-suit notice, and this bars the claim. Recognizing this impediment, Plaintiffs ask the Court to dismiss this aspect of its CCPA without prejudice so they can attempt to cure the defect. The Court agrees that dismissal should be without prejudice. This accords with the remedial nature of the CCPA’s notice provision. Allowing a notice would give Convergent the opportunity afforded to it under the CCPA to cure the injury. Other than Griffey, Convergent provides no authority that would compel dismissal with prejudice. And the Court declines to follow the outcome in Griffey because the court there provided no explanation as to why it dismissed the claim with prejudice or why doing so would align with the purpose of the CCPA. The Court declines to follow the Griffey decision, and DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ CCPA claim for statutory damages without prejudice.
The Court also found that Plaintiffs alleged damages sufficient to meet Article III standing based on the diminished value of their personal information:
[Defendant] … argues that Plaintiffs have not identified actionable damages. The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs have alleged a diminution of the value of their PII. These allegations are sufficient to show damages which are fairly traceable to [Defendant’s] violation of the CCPA. This satisfies the damages requirement and Article III standing.
LEO GUY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., Defendant., No. C22-1558 MJP, 2023 WL 4637318, at *9–10 (W.D. Wash. July 20, 2023)