Understanding Standing After 'Spokeo v. Robins'

One of the most basic elements of federal-court practice is that a plaintiff must have constitutional “standing” to maintain a suit in federal court. In the closely watched case, Spokeo v. Robins, 578 U.S. No. 11-56843 (2016), the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with a frequently recurring issue—whether the mere violation of a statute itself constitutes an “injury in fact”—the “first and foremost” of the three standing requirements. “Injury in fact” is one of those legal concepts that makes intuitive sense—you have to be actually harmed before you can sue. But it can create confusion when you try to apply it to a particular case, as evidenced by the conflicting lower-court rulings that prompted the court to grant review in Spokeo. In Spokeo, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for a five justice majority, resolved some of that confusion, but by no means did he ­eliminate it.

Robins’s Case Against Spokeo

Spokeo.com is a “people search engine,” a website that allows users to search for and obtain information about people, such as their ages, addresses, employment, etc. Thomas Robins alleged that when someone entered his (not exactly uncommon) name in the Spokeo website, it returned inaccurate information about his education, family status and income. Robins sued Spokeo, on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681. The FCRA allows individuals to collect “actual damages” or statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation if a consumer reporting agency willfully fails to comply with the statute with respect to that individual. Robins alleged Spokeo violated multiple FCRA requirements: to follow reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of consumer reports, to notify users of their responsibilities under the FCRA, to limit when they provide consumer reports for employment purposes, and to post toll-free numbers for consumers to request reports. According to Robins, he was seeking employment and the incorrect information on Spokeo could have ­dissuaded potential employers from hiring him.