United States: U.S. Supreme Court Remands Spokeo In Ruling That Mere Technical, Statutory Violation Is Insufficient To Confer Article III Standing

On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-anticipated decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. Spokeo considered whether Congress may confer Article III standing by authorizing a private right of action based on the violation of a federal statute alone, despite a plaintiff having suffered no "real world" harm. The Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision, vacated and remanded the decision of the Ninth Circuit, the latter of which found the existence of Article III standing in a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). The Court found that while the Ninth Circuit had considered whether the harm was particularized, the lower court had failed to consider whether the "invasion of a legally protected interest" was "concrete." After holding that a "violation of one of the FCRA's procedural requirements may result in no harm," SCOTUS instructed the Ninth Circuit to decide "whether the particular procedural violations alleged in this case entail a degree of risk sufficient to meet the concreteness requirement." Although the case was decided under the FCRA, it has major potential implications for consumer-facing companies of all types and putative class actions generally.

Background

In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, Plaintiff Robins sued the "people search engine" for alleged violations of the FCRA. Robins alleged that Spokeo published inaccurate (though not harmful per se) information about him, including that Robins had a graduate degree and was married and had children. At issue was the fact that the Complaint alleged only statutory violations and no physical injury-in-fact. Spokeo argued that this statutory violation alone was insufficient to confer Article III standing because it does not meet the "irreducible constitutional minimum" to establish standing, which required a plaintiff to have suffered an injury-in-fact by sustaining an "actual or imminent" harm that is "concrete and particularized."

The district court for the Central District of California originally dismissed the case, holding that Robins failed to allege any injury-in-fact and, therefore, did not have Article III standing. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the alleged violation of Robins' statutory rights alone was sufficient to satisfy Article III's requirements, regardless of whether the plaintiff can show a separate actual injury. On April 27, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The Decision

Justice Alito delivered the 6-2 decision of the Court, vacating and remanding the Ninth's Circuit's February 2014 decision. The majority held that the Ninth Circuit's injury-in-fact analysis was "incomplete" because it "focused on the second characteristic (particularity), but it overlooked the first (concreteness)." According to the Court, "a 'concrete' injury must be 'de facto'; that is, it must actually exist" in a "'real,' and not 'abstract'" sense, but is not "necessarily synonymous with tangible."

While noting Congress's role in identifying and elevating intangible harms to create standing for statutory violations, the majority made clear that this "does not mean that a plaintiff automatically satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate that right." More (i.e., a concrete injury) is necessary. Indeed, this is exactly why Robins could not "allege a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm, and satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III." The Court provided further guidance as to when such an "intangible harm" might provide standing, stating that "the risk of real harm" may satisfy the requirement of concreteness" including when those harms "may be difficult to prove or measure," with the Court then citing certain prior Supreme Court cases where standing has been found to be present.

The majority concluded with certain examples of non-concrete, statutory violations:

A violation of one of the FCRA's procedural requirements may result in no harm. For example even if a consumer reporting agency fails to provide the required notice to a user of the agency's consumer information, that information regardless may be entirely accurate. In additional, not all inaccuracies cause harm or present any material risk of harm. An example that comes readily to mind is an incorrect zip code. It is difficult to imagine how the dissemination of an incorrect zip code, without more, could work any concrete harm.

Through this analysis, the Supreme Court indicated that a technical violation – or related inaccuracy – is not enough to create particularized, concrete harm. The Court then remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit to make that determination in light of the allegations pled.

In his concurrence, Justice Thomas elaborated on the majority's injury-in-fact pronouncements via an historical lens, adding: "A plaintiff seeking to vindicate a public right embodied in a federal statute, however, must demonstrate that the violation of that public right has caused him a concrete, individual harm distinct from the general population."

In their narrow dissent, Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor noted their disagreement with the "necessity of remand to determine whether Robins' particularized injury was 'concrete.'" To them, Spokeo's misinformation about Robins, as alleged in his complaint, conveyed concretely that his employment prospects were harmed. This misinformation included creating the impression that he was overqualified for the work he was seeking, that he might be unwilling to relocate, and that his salary demands would exceed what employers were prepared to offer.

Implications for FCRA Cases and Other Consumer Lawsuits/Class Actions

While, at its core, Spokeo is an FCRA decision, the ruling will have a broad impact on all consumer lawsuits. The Supreme Court's analysis will undoubtedly engender future argument by consumer plaintiffs and defendants as to whether a named plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a "concrete" injury sufficient to give rise to constitutional standing. That is true on two fronts: individual lawsuits and proposed class actions.

First, for individual actions, it is evident that a plaintiff will be required to plead something more than just a bare statutory violation, although an intangible harm might suffice. Consumer plaintiffs will thus likely attempt to plead intangible injury that they claim is the type of risk of harm that Congress sought to address by enacting the statutory requirement at issue, and they will further point to the portions of the opinion stating that Congressional judgments in that regard are important and entitled to some measure of deference. On the other hand, defendants will emphasize the language in the opinion that bare procedural violations alone are not enough, and that a procedural violation must actually be in some way concrete in its effect on plaintiff and be the type of harm that relates to the interest sought to be protected by the statute in question.

Second, for class actions, even assuming that standing was sufficiently alleged for the named plaintiff, there will be further debate as to whether these types of consumer class actions are viable and certifiable. The Supreme Court's decision appears to provide further bases for defendants to argue that procedural, "no harm" class actions cannot proceed. The Supreme Court's statements that "it is difficult to imagine how a [technical inaccuracy], without more, could work any concrete harm" could be used by defendants to drive a wedge between the alleged harm of a named plaintiff as a result of a procedural violation and the unknown circumstances of putative class members.

Indeed, Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion appeared to focus on the class action implications of the decision, noting that the standing analysis will be more complex and difficult in the context of cases challenging statutory duties owed "to the public collectively." Justice Thomas also stated as follows, which has class action implications for attempts to expand claims of Article III injury beyond the named plaintiff: "If Congress has created a private duty owed personally to Robins to protect his information, then the violation of the legal duty suffices for Article III injury-in-fact. If that provision, however, vests any and all consumers with the power to police the 'reasonable procedures' of Spokeo, without more, then Robins has no standing to sue for its violation absent an allegation that he has suffered individualized harm. On remand, the Court of Appeals can consider the nature of this claim." Against these types of statements, consumer plaintiffs will likely attempt to claim that the risk of intangible injury remained uniform across the putative class members, but it is not clear that this will be enough.

Going Forward

The Supreme Court ultimately took "no position" as to whether the Ninth Circuit's decision was correct, leaving the door open for further argument consistent with its guidance. Given the procedural nature of the Court's holding, the debate over the contours of the decision will play out in the lower courts and further litigation. It is expected that there will be significant guidance on this issue in the relative short term given the number of lower court proceedings that were stayed pending the outcome of the Spokeo decision.

Fundamentally, the decision was a victory for the defendant in the case, but the breadth of that victory will be debated, with the same type of circuit split that gave rise to the Spokeo  decision potentially being repeated.

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
David N. Anthony
Timothy St. George
Alan D. Wingfield
Scott Kelly
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Carlton Fields
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Carlton Fields
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions