California Court of Appeals Allows Consumer Protection Claim Against Walmart to Move Forward
On Feb. 4, the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District sided with our client in Parsonage v. Walmart — a suit against Walmart alleging a violation of California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA), which says that people can bring claims when an employer or consumer reporting agency misuses their personal information.
The plaintiff, Tina Parsonage, applied for a job with Walmart, and the retailer ordered a background check on Tina. However, Tina alleged the background check and Walmart’s disclosure to her about the background check violated ICRAA, which requires employers conducting background checks to provide very clear disclosures to applicants, in a standalone document without unnecessary additional information mixed in. Tina alleges Walmart did not disclose required information to her, nor was it in a standalone document. Tina filed suit against Walmart alleging a violation of ICRAA. In its motion for summary judgment, Walmart argued only that Tina was not injured by the violation and therefore lacked standing to bring her claims.
The California Court of Appeals’ recent decision found that, to have standing to sue in California court, a plaintiff only needs to plead a violation of a statute. The court also agreed that our client had standing to bring her ICRAA claim.
Public Justice Access to Justice Project Director Leah Nicholls presented oral argument on behalf of the plaintiff on Jan.13, 2026. Our statement on the court’s decision:
“Whether plaintiffs need to show an injury beyond a statutory violation to sue in California courts has divided the California courts of appeal, with some courts holding that an additional injury is required. We’re thrilled for Ms. Parsonage and for potential plaintiffs throughout California that the court here made very clear that statutory standing is enough — and explained why courts reaching the opposite conclusion were wrong.”