NEWARK, N.J. — A federal judge has dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit against New Jersey-based background check company TABB Inc., finding the plaintiff failed to establish that he suffered a concrete injury necessary to pursue the case in federal court.
In an opinion issued Thursday, U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler granted TABB Inc.’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Arthur Ojo, who sought to represent others affected by a data security incident involving the company.
According to the complaint, TABB provides pre-employment background checks for employers and collects sensitive personal information from job applicants, including names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver’s license information, financial data and educational records.
The lawsuit alleged that in August 2024, a database containing background check information became publicly discoverable because of a configuration error. TABB notified affected individuals in February 2026, stating that the database had been secured but acknowledging it could not rule out that unauthorized individuals may have accessed the files while they were exposed.
The company also told affected individuals it had no evidence that any information had been misused and offered one year of complimentary credit monitoring services.
Ojo claimed the incident caused him emotional distress, increased spam communications, time spent monitoring his financial accounts and alerts from Apple indicating that some of his personal information appeared on the dark web.
Judge Chesler concluded those allegations were insufficient to establish Article III standing under federal law.
The opinion found that the complaint failed to allege facts showing Ojo’s information had actually been misused or that any alleged injuries were directly linked to the database exposure. The court also determined that generalized fears of future identity theft, increased spam, and time spent monitoring accounts were not enough to establish a concrete injury under recent federal court precedent.
Because Ojo lacked constitutional standing, the court ruled it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case and dismissed the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The judge therefore did not address TABB’s separate arguments seeking dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- Federal judge dismissed the proposed class action against TABB Inc.
- Plaintiff alleged a database containing personal information was publicly accessible.
- TABB said it found no evidence the information had been misused.
- The court ruled the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a concrete injury required for standing.
- The dismissal was based on lack of federal jurisdiction rather than the merits of the claims.
The decision reflects a growing body of federal case law requiring plaintiffs in data breach lawsuits to demonstrate actual or imminent harm rather than relying solely on the possibility that exposed information could someday be misused. Courts have increasingly scrutinized whether alleged injuries satisfy the constitutional requirement for standing before allowing such cases to proceed.
FAQ
What is TABB Inc.?
TABB Inc. is a New Jersey company that performs pre-employment background checks for employers.
What happened in the alleged data breach?
According to the complaint, a database containing background check information became publicly discoverable because of a configuration error in 2024.
What information was involved?
The complaint says the database contained personal information such as names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver’s license information and financial data.
Why was the lawsuit dismissed?
The judge ruled the plaintiff failed to establish a concrete injury required to pursue the case in federal court.
Did the court decide whether TABB was responsible for the alleged exposure?
No. The court dismissed the case for lack of standing and did not reach the underlying legal claims.
Sources: United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Ojo v. TABB, Inc., Civil Action No. 26-04011; court opinion and order issued Aug. 13.
