Outside Publication

The Meaning Of Spokeo, 365 Days And 430 Decisions Later, Law360

May 15, 2017

It has been one year since the US Supreme Court’s much-anticipated decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins. The Spokeo decision analyzed the standing requirement of Article III in the context of federal statutory claims — particularly addressing whether Congress may confer standing on a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm and seeks only statutory damages.

In the decision, the Supreme Court clarified that “Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation,” noting that a plaintiff cannot “allege a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm, and satisfy the injury in fact requirement of Article III.”[2] The decision has set off an enhanced wave of motion practice, with litigants arguing the meaning of the decision in hundreds of cases in federal courts across the country.

View the full Law360 article >>