is “the violation of a procedural right granted by statute ... sufficient ... to constitute injury in fact.” See Spokeo, 136 S.Ct. at 1549. The California Court of Appeal appears to agree, stating that section 637.2 of CIPA “is fairly read as establishing that no violation of the Privacy Act is to go unpunished. Any invasion of privacy involves an affront to human dignity which the Legislature could conclude is worth at least $[5,000]. The right to recover this statutory minimum accrued at the moment the Privacy Act was violated.” Friddle v. Epstein, 16 Cal.App.4th 1649, 1660-61, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 85 (1993), opinion modified on denial of reh’g (July 7, 1993); see also Bona Fide Conglomerate, Inc. v. SourceAmerica, No. 314CV00751GPCDHB, 2016 WL 3543699, at *8 (S.D. Cal. June 29, 2016) (<HOLDING>). The alleged harm to all Plaintiffs—an
holding that in the context of food and drug safety suits enhanced risk qualifies as sufficient injury to confer standing holding that allegation of cipa violation is sufficient to confer standing holding that a choice of law provision is not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant holding that allegation that applicant is able and ready to reapply is sufficient to establish standing to seek prospective relief holding statutory violation sufficient cause