<?xml version="1.0"?>
<oembed><version>1.0</version><provider_name>CLP Blog</provider_name><provider_url>https://clpblog.citizen.org</provider_url><author_name>Adam Pulver</author_name><title>4th Circuit: Lack of Article III standing resuscitates state-law identity theft protection claim - CLP Blog</title><type>rich</type><width>600</width><height>338</height><html>&lt;blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="dtl1LR37Dl"&gt;&lt;a href="https://clpblog.citizen.org/4th-circuit-lack-of-article-iii-standing-resuscitates-state-law-identity-theft-protection-claim/"&gt;4th Circuit: Lack of Article III standing resuscitates state-law identity theft protection claim&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="https://clpblog.citizen.org/4th-circuit-lack-of-article-iii-standing-resuscitates-state-law-identity-theft-protection-claim/embed/#?secret=dtl1LR37Dl" width="600" height="338" title="&#x201C;4th Circuit: Lack of Article III standing resuscitates state-law identity theft protection claim&#x201D; &#x2014; CLP Blog" data-secret="dtl1LR37Dl" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;&lt;script type="text/javascript"&gt;
/* &lt;![CDATA[ */
/*! This file is auto-generated */
!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&amp;&amp;d.addEventListener&amp;&amp;"undefined"!=typeof URL&amp;&amp;(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&amp;&amp;!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i&lt;o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i&lt;a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&amp;&amp;(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3&lt;(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r&lt;200&amp;&amp;(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&amp;&amp;(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&amp;&amp;n.host===r.host&amp;&amp;l.activeElement===s&amp;&amp;(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r&lt;s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);
/* ]]&gt; */
&lt;/script&gt;
</html><description>In its decisions in Spokeo v. Robins and TransUnion v. Ramirez, the Supreme Court held that consumers lack Article III standing to challenge violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act absent the showing of some concrete harm beyond the publication of inaccurate credit information. On Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit confronted how those decisions interact with [...]</description></oembed>
