Spokeo,_Inc._v._Robins

<i>Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins</i>

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins

2016 United States Supreme Court case

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court vacated and remanded a ruling by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the basis that the Ninth Circuit had not properly determined whether the plaintiff has suffered an "injury-in-fact" when analyzing whether he had standing to bring his case in federal court.[1] The Court did not discuss whether "the Ninth Circuit’s ultimate conclusion — that Robins adequately alleged an injury in fact — was correct."[2]

Quick Facts Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, Argued November 2, 2015 Decided May 16, 2016 ...

Background

Spokeo, Inc. operates a .com website featuring a "people search engine" with which its users can obtain in-depth consumer reports on individual persons.[3]: 437  In 2010, a class action law firm sued Spokeo in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).[4] Thomas Robins, the named plaintiff, alleged that he was unemployed while Spokeo's profile of him falsely stated that he worked in a professional field, had a graduate degree, was a married parent, had a high level of wealth, and included a false age and profile photograph.[3]: 437  In January 2011, Judge Otis D. Wright II dismissed the initial complaint for not alleging "any actual or imminent harm" after which Robins amended his complaint to allege employment, stress and anxiety injuries.[3]: 438  In May 2011, Judge Wright found Robins had alleged a valid injury-in-fact before then reversing himself and dismissing the case for lack of standing after Spokeo filed for an appeal.[3]: 438 

In June 2012, Spokeo agreed to pay $800,000 to settle a separate FCRA based lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission.[5][6]

In February 2014, a unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed Judge Wright's dismissal and remanded the case.[7] Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, joined by Judges Susan P. Graber and Carlos Bea, reasoned that Robins had alleged injuries sufficient to establish standing because FCRA protected individual, rather than collective, rights and Robins was suing for a violation of his own statutory rights.[3]: 438  In a footnote, the Circuit explicitly found it did not need to reach Robins' additional allegations regarding injuries to his employment prospects or from anxiety.[3]: 439 

The Supreme Court of the United States granted Spokeo's petition for a writ of certiorari and one-hour of oral arguments were heard on November 2, 2015, where Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Malcom Stewart appeared for the government as a friend in support of Robins.[8][9][10]

Opinion of the Court

On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in favor of Spokeo, vacating and remanding by a vote of 6-2.[11] Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan, wrote that the circuit below had failed to establish that Robins had standing to file the lawsuit under Article Three of the United States Constitution.[3]: 439 

The Court first explained that the Constitution's Case or Controversy Clause requires any plaintiff to allege an injury-in-fact that is "concrete and particularized".[3]: 439  While the Ninth Circuit identified particular harms to Robins, it erred, according to the Court, by not also determining that those harms were "concrete".[3]: 439  Although intangible harms such as risk can be concrete, the Court clarified, "bare procedural violations" cannot.[3]: 439  The Court remanded the case while taking "no position as to whether the Ninth Circuit’s ultimate conclusion— that Robins adequately alleged an injury in fact— was correct."[12]

Justice Thomas' concurrence

Justice Clarence Thomas added a concurrence, alone.[3]: 440  He wrote separately to describe his belief that the Constitution's Case or Controversy requirement is founded upon the common law distinction between private rights and public rights as articulated by William Blackstone.[13]

Justice Ginsburg's dissent

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Sonia Sotomayor, dissented.[3]: 441  Justice Ginsburg wrote that she agreed with much of the Court’s opinion but saw "no utility" in remanding the case back to the Ninth Circuit. Justice Ginsburg saw the many inaccuracies published by Spokeo as concretely harming Robins and, as such, she would have simply affirmed.[3]: 441 

Subsequent developments

On August 15, 2017, the Ninth Circuit again allowed Robins' lawsuit to proceed.[14][15]: 894  Judge O'Scannlain, joined by the same judges as before, now found that Robins had alleged a sufficiently concrete harm to establish an injury in fact under the Constitution. Relying on an amicus curiae brief filed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in support of Robins, Judge O'Scannlain determined that publishing even flattering inaccuracies could harm a job seeker. Spokeo again petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, but this was denied.[16]

See also

References

  1. [1]
    Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339, 578 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1540, slip op. at 8-11 (2016).
  2. [2]
    Spokeo, slip op. at 11.
  3. [3]
    Note, The Supreme Court, 2015 Term — Leading Cases, 130 Harv. L. Rev. 437 (2016).
  4. [4]
    Dougherty, Conor (April 5, 2015). "Jay Edelson, the Class-Action Lawyer Who May Be Tech's Least Friended Man". The New York Times. p. BU1. Retrieved February 12, 2018.
  5. [5]
    Wyatt, Edward (June 13, 2012). "Spokeo Is Penalized by F.T.C. in Sale of Personal Data". The New York Times. p. B2. Retrieved February 12, 2018.
  6. [6]
    "Spokeo to Pay $800,000 to Settle FTC Charges Company Allegedly Marketed Information to Employers and Recruiters in Violation of FCRA". Federal Trade Commission. June 12, 2012. Retrieved February 12, 2018.
  7. [7]
    Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., 742 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 2014).
  8. [8]
    Liptak, Adam (November 3, 2015). "Justices Hear Debate on Suing Companies for Seemingly Harmless Falsehoods". The New York Times. p. B3. Retrieved February 12, 2018.
  9. [9]
    The Editorial Board (November 1, 2015). "Opinion: Justices Should Let an Online Privacy Case Proceed". The New York Times. p. SR10. Retrieved February 12, 2018.
  10. [10]
    "Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins". Oyez Project. Retrieved February 12, 2018.
  11. [11]
    Liptak, Adam (May 17, 2016). "Supreme Court Returns False-Data Case to Appeals Panel". The New York Times. p. B3. Retrieved February 12, 2018.
  12. [12]
    Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1550.
  13. [13]
    Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1551 (Thomas, J., concurring), citing Woolhander & Nelson, Does History Defeat Standing Doctrine?, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 689, 693 (2004).
  14. [14]
    Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., 867 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2017).
  15. [15]
    Note, Recent Case: Ninth Circuit Allows Fair Credit Reporting Act Class Action to Proceed Past Standing Challenge, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 894 (2018).
  16. [16]
    Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 138 S. Ct. 931 (2018).
Share this article:

This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Spokeo,_Inc._v._Robins, and is written by contributors. Text is available under a CC BY-SA 4.0 International License; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.