Photo of Michael O'Neil

Michael O'Neil

Subscribe to Michael O'Neil's Posts
Contact:Read more about Michael O'Neil

The Ninth Circuit added another chapter to the storied tale of Article III standing jurisprudence on August 15 when, on remand from the Supreme Court, the appellate court unanimously revived a plaintiff’s Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) suit in Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2017 WL 3480695 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2017).

The single FCRA claim asserted by Thomas Robins is premised upon the Spokeo website, which collects data to build consumer-information profiles.  Profiles may allegedly include such details, as the court noted, as a “person’s age, contact information, marital status, occupation, hobbies, economic health, and wealth.”  Robins’ website profile allegedly included his inaccurate age, marital status, reported wealth and profession, and even his photo (of a different person).

He sued Spokeo for willful violation of section 1681e(b) of the FCRA, alleging that it had “failed to ‘follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy’ of the information in his credit report.”  A willful violation allows for a statutory award, even in the absence of actual damages.  See id. 15 U.S.C. § 1681n.  Robins alleged that the publication of the inaccurate information hurt his job prospects and caused him to suffer emotional distress.   Whether such alleged injuries satisfied the Article III test for standing has been the focus of the litigation, which is now in its seventh year.

On the first appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the suit, finding that Robins had pleaded a “concrete and particularized” injury, i.e., an injury-in-fact, because he had alleged Spokeo violated his individual statutory rights (Spokeo I).  The Supreme Court in May 2016 vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision (Spokeo II).  While the Court agreed Robins’ alleged injury was particularized to him, it held that a mere alleged statutory violation was not enough to establish a concrete injury necessary for Article III standing.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Holds Alleged FCRA Violation Satisfies Article III Standing

Just days after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Spokeo v. Robins, the highly anticipated decision is already impacting data breach class actions across the country. The defendant in the Spokeo case contended that the plaintiff had suffered no concrete injury, and that a mere statutory violation is not enough of an injury to…

The federal judiciary derives its power from Article III of the United States Constitution. That power is limited to deciding “Cases” and “Controversies,” Art. III, section 2. In the case of Spokeo v. Robins, the United States Supreme Court considered whether a plaintiff presents such a “case” or “controversy” where he only alleged a violation of a consumer protection statute, but did not allege any additional harm. The statute in question was the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). The Court found that plaintiff “cannot satisfy the demands of Article III by alleging a bare procedural violation. A violation of one of the FCRA’s procedural requirements may result in no harm.” Slip op. at 10. Even though Congress enacted the FCRA to avoid dissemination of inaccurate information, for example, “It is difficult to imagine how the dissemination of an incorrect zip code, without more, could work any concrete harm.” Id. at 11. The Supreme Court remanded this case for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to further consider whether this plaintiff presented a “concrete injury” justifying the assertion of Article III jurisdiction.
Continue Reading In Spokeo v. Robins, The United States Supreme Court Articulates a Need for ‘Concrete’ Injury To Sue in Federal Court