CFPB Files Amicus Brief Before Ninth Circuit In Spokeo

On May 16, the Supreme Court in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins found that the Ninth Circuit had not adequately addressed whether the named plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a "concrete" injury in connection with his putative FCRA class action against Spokeo, Inc. In Spokeo, the plaintiff (Robins) sued the "people search engine" for alleged violations of the FCRA. Robins alleged that Spokeo published inaccurate (though not harmful per se) information about him, including that Robins had a graduate degree and was married and had children.

At issue was the fact that the Complaint alleged only statutory violations and no physical injury-in-fact. Spokeo argued that this statutory violation alone was insufficient to confer Article III standing because it does not meet the "irreducible constitutional minimum" to establish standing, which requires a plaintiff to have suffered an injury-in-fact by sustaining an "actual or imminent" harm that is "concrete and particularized." The