Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 18 MAY 2016

Supreme Court's Spokeo Decision Erects Barriers For Privacy And Data Security Plaintiffs

Ropes & Gray LLP
Ropes & Gray LLP
Contributor
Ropes & Gray LLP

Ropes & Gray LLP

Ropes & Gray is one of the world’s most respected law firms, with offices in key business and...

View firm profile
Explore more from Ropes & Gray LLP

On May 16, 2016, the United States Supreme Court in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins confirmed that a "concrete" injury is required of all private parties seeking to assert claims in federal court.

United StatesPrivacy

On May 16, 2016, the United States Supreme Court in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins confirmed that a "concrete" injury is required of all private parties seeking to assert claims in federal court, even those alleging violations of a federal statute for which Congress has provided a statutory damages remedy. Where no concrete injury has yet been suffered, a claimant must allege a sufficiently imminent "risk of real harm" in order to satisfy the concreteness requirement. Although the Spokeo case addressed a claim for willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), the decision is likely to have broad implications in other contexts as well – particularly in the privacy and data security space, where plaintiffs frequently seek to recover statutory damages for purported violations of statutes such as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Video Privacy Protection Act, and Electronic Communications Privacy Act, as well as FCRA, often without alleging any actual or

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from