In a 6-2 opinion issued May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court vacated a Ninth Circuit holding that a plaintiff who alleges that his own federal statutory rights have been violated has alleged enough to establish Article III standing to sue. The Court remanded the long-pending Fair Credit Reporting Act case, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, no. 13-1339, for consideration of whether the plaintiff has otherwise alleged in his complaint a sufficiently concrete injury for standing purposes. Spokeo’s limited yet potentially significant holding leaves many questions unanswered.
The Complaint’s Allegations
Spokeo, Inc. runs a people search engine that provides information on individuals. The plaintiff alleged that Spokeo provided inaccurate information about him. The misinformation included that he was married, had children, was in his 50s, had a job, was relatively affluent, and held a graduate degree. None of this information was correct, according to the complaint. According to the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, the plaintiff alleged that the misinformation caused actual harm to his employment prospects and caused him anxiety and stress. 724 F.3d at 411. The plaintiff filed a class action complaint alleging several Fair Credit Reporting Act violations. The district court ultimately dismissed the complaint for lack of standing
The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed. The court held that the plaintiff had standing to sue for two reasons: first, because he alleged that Spokeo violated his statutory rights, not the rights of others; and, second, that the statutory rights at issue were sufficiently concrete and particularized that Congress could elevate them to the status of legally cognizable injuries. Id. at 413. The court did not address how the plaintiff’s somewhat more specific...
