Skip to content

US Supreme Court Fails to Clarify ‘Standing’ Doctrine in Consumer Privacy Case

Marc Rotenberg, Aimee Thomson

DOI https://doi.org/10.21552/EDPL/2016/3/23



Spokeo, Inc v Robins, 136 Supreme Court 1540 (2016)
Article III of the US Constitution requires plaintiffs in federal court to have suffered an injury-in-fact that is fairly traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by the court. The plaintiff’s injury-in-fact must be concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent. The US Supreme Court found that the federal appeals court did not analyse the concreteness of plaintiff Thomas Robins’s allegation that Spokeo, Inc violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is remanded so the appeals court can consider whether the allegation is concrete.

Marc Rotenberg, President of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Adjunct Professor, Georgetown Law University Law Center, Coauthor (with Anita L Allen) Privacy Law and Society (West 2016). For correspondence: <mailto:rotenberg@epic.org>. Aimee Thomson, Appellate Advocate Counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). For correspondence: <mailto:aimee.thomson@nyu.edu>.

Share


Lx-Number Search

A
|
(e.g. A | 000123 | 01)

Export Citation