The promise that was Spokeo v. Robins has come to a close, with the justices ruling 6-2 in favor of Spokeo. But that may not be the end of the issue.
Spokeo v. Robins has been on people’s radar for a long time, because of all the promise it held for whether you need quantifiable harm in order to sue. At the center of the case was Thomas Robins, who claimed that—while he had no proof of economic harm—the false information about him on Spokeo’s site was a violation of his rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
The District Court initially sided with Spokeo, agreeing that under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff must suffer an “injury-in-fact” in order to have grounds for a lawsuit. But then the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision in 2011, finding that “standing by virtue of alleged violations of his statutory rights” alone Robins had satisfied Article III. And so the issue came before the U.S. Supreme Court: Does a plaintiff suffering a non-concrete injury get Article III standing, allowing a suit based on the bare violation of a statute?
And Monday the Supreme Court made up its mind: As the injury-in-law would not be enough, injury-in-law would not be enough and that an injury-in-fact must be both concrete and particularized, affecting a plaintiff in a personal and individual way. Notably the majority found the misrepresentation of Robins’ zip code as a form of injury insubstantial (something a few folks took issue with).
But the case isn’t a total victory for Spokeo. In their ruling the majority concludes with a crack in the door for people like Robins who might have a stronger example of harm.
“Because the Ninth Circuit failed to fully appreciate the distinction between concreteness and particularization, its standing analysis was incomplete,” said the ruling. “It did not address the question framed by our discussion, namely, whether the particular procedural violations alleged in this case entail a degree of risk sufficient to meet the concreteness requirement. We take no position as to whether the Ninth Circuit’s ultimate conclusion—that Robins adequately alleged an injury in fact—was correct.”
Combined with the weighty implications a ruling for Robins might’ve had, many believe that this issue is not decided.
Indeed, when the Supremes announced they would hear Spokeo v. Robins, it seemed like a decision either way would be monumental. In favor of Robins would open up a lot of avenues for injuries being sussed out by the court. But a ruling in favor of Spokeo was thought to mean many suits would be subjected to dismissal at an early stage if they couldn’t point to some sort of concrete harm. With a court that remains understaffed, the justices seemed less inclined than usual to make a grand pronouncement about injury suits, and as Wystan Ackerman writes for Class Actions Insider this might not be as grand a decision as it was thought to be:
I expect this opinion will have limited impact on class action litigation generally. Where the plaintiff’s claims are nebulous, defendants will continue to argue that there is no concrete or particularized injury. Lower courts will have to sort that out without much more guidance from the Supreme Court than they had before this decision.
Where I see this opinion as being potentially more useful to defendants is that where defendants can argue that the individual circumstances of each putative class member’s claim must be litigated to determine whether there is a “personal and individual” injury, that can, in appropriate cases, be a strong argument against class certification.
This week Spokeo has found what seems like a narrow victory and will possibly see minor rewards at the lower court. But future victories of this nature might be found in a different zip code.