Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins

Whether a plaintiff can sustain Article III standing by showing only a violation of a federal statute, or whether the plaintiff must also show concrete harm to sustain Article III standing?

Respondent filed suit against Petitioner, claiming that Petitioner violated the Fair Credit Report Act by providing misinformation on its website. The district court dismissed the complaint and Respondent appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the federal statute created a statutory cause of action for violation of statutory rights even where there is no showing of actual damages. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit held that Respondent did have standing and remanded the case to the district court.

Petitioner urges the United States Supreme Court to consider whether Congress can confer Article III standing for a statutory injury-in-law as the Ninth Circuit held. Petitioner argues that a statutory injury-in-law does not satisfy Article III. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether a plaintiff can sustain Article III standing by showing only a violation of a federal statute, or whether the plaintiff must also show concrete harm to sustain Article III standing?