The U.S. Supreme Court on March 31 held oral arguments in a case that may have a significant impact on the ability to certify a class action seeking statutory damages.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits a federal court’s power to grant relief, requiring that a plaintiff prove that he suffered concrete harm or certainly impending harm. In 2016, the Supreme Court held in Spokeo v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016) that a bare statutory violation does not satisfy Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement. However, as Justice Samuel Alito put it during oral argument in the TransUnion case, “Spokeo’s discussion of harm is quite clipped.” In fact, since Spokeo, many federal courts have inconsistently applied the Supreme Court’s reasoning in determining what degree of harm, or threat of likelihood of harm, is sufficient to be deemed “concrete.”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]