Solidifying a growing circuit split in the wake of Spokeo v. Robins, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held on Monday that a single unsolicited call to a woman's cellphone was enough harm for her to sue under the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The ruling joins a competing line of circuit decisions attempting to interpret Spokeo, in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that a plaintiff who wants to sue in federal court must allege an injury that is “particularized” and “concrete,” and not just a procedural violation. The issue is critical in class actions where statutory violations are common and the defense bar has accused plaintiffs lawyers of bringing cases where there are no concrete injuries.

“What you're starting to see is a more well-developed circuit split on the issue, with certain circuits giving the green light to claims of Article III standing based essentially on violations of the provision and not a whole lot more,” said Timothy St. George, a partner at Troutman Sanders in Richmond, Virginia. Those decisions are primarily coming out of the Third and Ninth circuits, while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit provided the most defense-oriented decision in its May 11 ruling in Dreher v. Experion Information Solutions, which vacated an $11.7 million judgment in a class action after finding the lead plaintiff failed to allege a concrete injury.