CANDELARIO v. RIP CURL INC 10 (2018)

MEMORANDUM ***

Lucia Candelario appeals the district court’s dismissal for lack of Article III standing of her putative class action lawsuit against Rip Curl, Inc. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

In her complaint, Candelario alleges that Rip Curl violated New Jersey’s Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 56:12-14 et seq. (“The Act”) because the terms and conditions on Rip Curl’s website deprived Candelario of a cause of action for risk created by Rip Curl and absolved Rip Curl of its duty to protect consumers from illegal acts of third parties. Candelario argues that, as a result of Rip Curl’s violation of the Act, she suffered “intangible, informational injuries” sufficient to trigger Article III standing.

Candelario’s arguments are foreclosed by Bassett v. ABM Parking Services, Inc., 883 F.3d 776, 778 (9th Cir. 2018). As the district court noted, Candelario failed to identify any concrete informational injury. Candelario’s conclusory allegation that she suffered “intangible, informational injuries” based on a violation of the Act alone is too speculative to establish Article III standing. See id.

AFFIRMED.