After the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the parties again appeared before the lower court, arguing over whether a purely technical violation of the FCRA is sufficient to satisfy the concreteness requirement for Article III standing. The Supreme Court issued its decision in the Spokeo matter, holding that while the Ninth Circuit had considered whether Robins’ harm was particularized, the lower court had failed to consider whether the “invasion of a legally protected interest” was “concrete.” The high court instructed the Ninth Circuit to consider “whether the particular procedural violations alleged in this case entail a degree of risk sufficient to meet the concreteness requirement.” In its supplemental brief, Spokeo argued that “[n]either the statutory violations alleged here nor the factual allegations of the complaint demonstrate that Robins suffered the required concrete harm or faced a ‘certainly impending’ risk of harm.”

Read more