In a decision that may have broad application in cases involving
an alleged violation of a statutory right, United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff suing for
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the "FCRA")
has Article III standing to pursue a claim without suffering actual
harm or actual damages. The decision, Robins v. Spokeo,
Inc., could eventually extend beyond the FCRA to any statutory
scheme that creates individual statutory rights.
The defendant, Spokeo, Inc., operates a website that provides
users with information about individuals, including contact data,
marital status, age, occupation, economic health, and wealth level.
Thomas Robins sued Spokeo for willful violations of the FCRA on a
purported class-wide basis, alleging that Spokeo's website
contained false information about him. Robins, who was unemployed,
alleged that the misinformation caused actual harm to his
employment prospects, as well as anxiety and stress about his
diminished employment prospects.
Spokeo moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction on the ground that Robins lacked standing under
Article III of the United States Constitution. The District Court
eventually ruled that Robins failed to plead an injury-in-fact and
that any injuries pled were not traceable to Spokeo's alleged
violations, and dismissed the action.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision.
The Court noted that Article III standing requires the plaintiff
show that he has suffered an "injury-in-fact," but found
that the violation of a statutory right is a sufficient
injury-in-fact to confer standing. As the Court noted,
Congress's creation of a private cause of action to enforce the
FCRA implies that Congress intended to create a statutory right.
Because the statutory cause of action does not require a showing of
actual harm when a plaintiff sues for willful violations, a
plaintiff can suffer a violation of the statutory right without
suffering actual damages.
The court also found that a claim for an alleged violation of a
statutory right also automatically satisfies the causation and
redressability components of standing, stating that "[w]hen
the injury-in-fact is the violation of a statutory right that we
inferred from the existence of a private cause of action, causation
and redressability will usually be satisfied." With respect to
causation, the court asserted that there is little doubt that a
defendant's alleged violation of a statutory provision
"caused" the violation of the right created by that
provision. As for redressability, the court found that because
statutes like the FCRA frequently provide for monetary damages,
they redress the violation of statutory rights.
While Spokeo appears to be a straightforward case of statutory interpretation, the decision is in many ways quite remarkable. Spokeo certainly opens the FCRA up to much more litigation brought by private individuals, either on their own behalf or on behalf of a class, who are not required to allege actual harm when a willful violation is alleged. Spokeo puts providers and websites that provide consumer information at greater risk in that they will no longer be able to get such actions dismissed on Article III standing grounds. Interpreted more broadly, Spokeo stands for the proposition when a statute creates a private right of action and a plaintiff alleges a willful violation of the statute, he satisfies the injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability elements, and thus has standing. It is likely that the reasoning in Spokeo will be argued to extend more broadly to encompass other statutory schemes that create a private right of action, granting automatic standing to anyone who alleges a claim for willful violation of a statutory right.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.