Illinois Supreme Court Limits No-Injury Federal Statutory Claims

On November 20, 2025, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a decision that will significantly reshape how federal statutory claims are litigated in Illinois courts. In Fausett v. Walgreen Co., 2025 IL 131444, the court held that a plaintiff who alleges only a technical violation of a federal statute—without any actual or concrete harm—does not have standing to sue in Illinois. The ruling eliminates a major avenue plaintiffs have used to pursue nationwide, no-injury class actions under federal laws by filing them in state court instead of federal court.

The case involved a claim under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). The plaintiff alleged that a Walgreens store printed more than the last five digits of her prepaid debit card number on a receipt. She claimed this created a heightened risk of identity theft, even though she admitted she had not experienced any identity theft, credit problems, or misuse of her information. She also could not identify anyone who had seen the receipt other than herself and the store cashier.

The court focused on a simple but important principle: in Illinois, a plaintiff must show a real, non-speculative injury to bring a lawsuit unless the legislature has clearly said otherwise. Unlike some statutes that explicitly give individuals the right to sue, the federal provisions governing FACTA do not specify who may bring an action. That means plaintiffs must satisfy Illinois’ traditional standing requirements, which demand an actual, distinct injury—not a hypothetical one.

The court concluded that a theoretical, increased risk of identity theft is not enough to qualify as an injury. Because the plaintiff could not point to any tangible harm, she lacked standing. As a result, the class action could not proceed, and the court ordered the case dismissed.

For businesses, this ruling is good news. Over the past decade, plaintiffs have increasingly turned to state courts to pursue “no-injury” claims under federal statutes, particularly after federal courts tightened standing requirements. Illinois was becoming a favored venue for such filings because its courts are not bound by federal Article III standards. This decision closes that loophole. Plaintiffs can no longer rely on technical statutory violations alone to bring large class actions in Illinois.

Companies that process payment cards, collect consumer data, or otherwise interact with federal privacy or consumer-protection statutes should pay attention to this development. The decision provides a stronger basis for early dismissal of claims that allege only procedural or technical violations without real harm. It also reduces the risk of costly class actions where plaintiffs cannot show genuine harm.