Robins v. Spokeo, Inc. - 867 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2017)

Rule:

In determining whether a plaintiff suing under a federal statute providing for a private right of action has Article III standing, while a plaintiff may not show an injury-in-fact merely by pointing to a statutory cause of action, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that some statutory violations, alone, do establish concrete harm. An alleged procedural violation of a statute can by itself manifest concrete injury where Congress has conferred the procedural right to protect a plaintiff's concrete interests and where the procedural violation presents a risk of real harm to that concrete interest.

Facts:

Spokeo, inc. was an operator of a website that compiled consumer data and built individual consumer-information profiles. At some point, Thomas Robins became aware that Spokeo had published an allegedly inaccurate report about him on its website. Robins then sued Spokeo for willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. Robins' suit alleged that Spokeo willfully violated various procedural requirements under FCRA, including that Spokeo failed to "follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy" of the information in his consumer report. Robins alleged that, as a result, Spokeo published a report which falsely stated his age, marital status, wealth, education level, and profession, and which included a photo of a different person. Robins alleged that such errors harmed his employment prospects at a time when he was out of work and that he continues to be unemployed and suffers emotional distress as a consequence. The district court dismissed Robins' First Amended Complaint, upon its determination that he lacked standing to sue under Article III of the United States Constitution. Specifically, the district court concluded that Robins alleged only a bare violation of the statute and did not adequately plead that such violation caused him to suffer an actual injury-in-fact. Robins appealed. 

Issue:

 Did the district court err in dismissing for lack of Article III standing Robins’ suit which alleged that Spokeo willfully violated FRCA?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court reversed the judgment of the district court, noting that 15 U.S.C.S. § 1681e(b), the FCRA provision which Spokeo allegedly violated, was crafted to protect consumers' concrete interest in accurate credit reporting about themselves, and violations § 1681e(b) could actually harm, or actually create a material risk of harm to, this concrete interest. In this case, Robins’ allegations that Spokeo violated § 1681e(b) of FRCA by publishing a consumer report that falsely stated his age, marital status, wealth, education level, and profession, and which prevented him from finding employment, alleged injuries that were sufficiently concrete to establish Article III standing.