The day is almost upon us. Halloween, you say? No, oral arguments in the Spokeo case. Way more exciting.
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins is important because it goes to the heart of when a claim for non-compliance can be brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) (15 U.S.C. § 1681). The case comes from the 9th Circuit. Short version is that the plaintiff alleges that Spokeo posted information about him which was inaccurate and failed to provide certain notices. But no actual harm.
Issue before the Supreme Court: Whether Congress may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing a private right of action based on a bare violation of a federal statute.
Lots of people have filed amici briefs (friend of the court briefs), including NAPBS, the Chamber of Commerce, CDIA, the credit bureaus and so on. Even the government got in on brief writing, in favor of Robins. Click here to read more.
Bottom line — oral arguments are next week and expect the Supreme Court to decide by June of 2016. While the issue may seem one better suited for legal geeks — can an individual bring a claim alleging an injury in law, but not one where he suffered actual harm — the reality is that this case could have significant ramifications for consumer lawsuits. Plaintiff’s bar is going bonkers (not a legal term) filing individual and class action complaints against employers alleging technical violations of the FCRA (e.g., not providing the disclosure or authorization or failure to follow adverse action steps). If the Supreme Court decides that plaintiffs must demonstrate actual harm, not just a mere technical violation of the law, that would be significant and limit such claims. However, if the Supreme Court goes the other way, employers and others who operate under the FCRA can expect more litigation alleging technical violations of the FCRA, not grounded in any injury or harm.
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 742 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 323 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2015) (No. 13-1339).
