Publications

The United States Supreme Court reversed a Ninth Circuit decision holding that an individual plaintiff had standing to sue Spokeo, a search engine company, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 (“FCRA”).  Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (U.S. May 16, 2016).

The putative class action suit was based on incorrect personal information disseminated by Spokeo on its website.  A California federal district court dismissed the complaint, holding that the plaintiff had not properly pleaded injury in fact as required by Article III of the Constitution.  The Ninth Circuit reversed, reasoning that the plaintiff had adequately alleged injury in fact because he alleged that Spokeo violated his statutory rights (not just the rights of other people) and because the plaintiff’s “personal interests in the handling of his credit information are personalized.”  The Supreme Court vacated the decision.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Ninth’s Circuit’s analysis was incomplete because a plaintiff must allege injury that is both “concrete and personalized” in order to establish injury in fact.  The Ninth Circuit focused only on particularity and did not address concreteness.  In remanding the matter to the Circuit court, the Court noted that the term “concrete” is not necessarily synonymous with “tangible,” and that intangible injuries can, in some instances, be concrete.  However, the Court cautioned that a plaintiff does not automatically satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement simply by alleging a violation of a statutory right.