On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated
decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. In Spokeo,
the Court addressed the issue of whether the Plaintiff alleged a
sufficient injury-in-fact to satisfy Article III standing
requirements. The case was ultimately vacated and remanded based on
the Ninth Circuit's failure to address the
"concreteness" of the Plaintiff's alleged harm
– a required element under the injury-in-fact analysis. In so
holding, the Court ruled that a mere technical, statutory violation
is insufficient to confer Article III standing.
More specifically, the Supreme Court held that a
"concrete" injury may either be tangible or intangible.
"In determining whether an intangible harm constitutes injury
in fact, both history and the judgment of Congress play important
roles," the Court said. "Congress may 'elevat[e] to
the status of legally cognizable injuries concrete, de
facto injuries that were previously inadequate in law."
However,
