Early on in the litigation process, the judge determined that the plaintiffs had sufficiently met the Article III standing bar in Spokeo v. Robins as established by the U.S. Supreme Court. As the case progressed, it would become the plaintiffs' burden to assert concrete injury and not simply a statutory violation. As the dispute proceeded to the summary judgment phase, the plaintiffs were charged with supplying more "specific facts" to establish standing as opposed to the base allegations that had previously been sustaining the class's status and case. The class decertification occurred as a result of the judge determining that the named plaintiffs failed to provide more concrete proof as was required. According to the judge's written order, the "named plaintiffs have failed to identify an injury stemming from this statutory violation that can suffice to support Article III standing."

Judge Carter referenced the Spokeo dispute in reaching his determination, which similarly involved alleged FCRA violations. The judge noted that the Supreme Court refrained from establishing standing based solely on procedural violations, requiring that a concrete injury must be proven as well. In both cases, the plaintiffs alleged only bare procedural violations.

The company argued for summary judgement in its favor by the district court; however, Judge Carter ruled that whether the plaintiffs could establish standing or certify as a class under the California law standards still remained to be addressed, ultimately concluding that, "the court will accordingly allow the state court, in the exercise of its proper parallel jurisdiction, to determine whether plaintiffs have standing under California law." As such, the dispute returns to Orange County Superior Court, where the case was originally filed in June 2017.