| Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 2, 2015 Decided May 16, 2016 | |
| Full case name | Spokeo, Inc., Petitioner v. Thomas Robins |
| Docket no. | 13-1339 |
| Citations | 578U.S.330 (more) 136 S. Ct. 1540; 194L. Ed. 2d 635 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Finding standing, 742F.3d409 (9th Cir. 2014);cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015). |
| Subsequent | Finding standing, 867F.3d1108 (9th Cir. 2017); cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 931 (2018). |
| Holding | |
| Because the Ninth Circuit failed to consider both the concrete and particularized aspects of the injury-in-fact requirement, its Article III standing analysis was incomplete. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Alito, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Sotomayor |
| Laws applied | |
| Fair Credit Reporting Act,15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. | |
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), was aUnited States Supreme Court case in which the Court vacated andremanded a ruling byUnited 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 hadstanding to bring his case infederal 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]
Spokeo, Inc. operates a.com website featuring a "peoplesearch engine" with which its users can obtain in-depth consumer reports on individual persons.[3]: 437 In 2010, aclass action law firm sued Spokeo in theUnited States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of theFair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).[4] Thomas Robins, the namedplaintiff, 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, JudgeOtis D. Wright II dismissed the initialcomplaint 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 ofstanding after Spokeo filed for anappeal.[3]: 438
In June 2012, Spokeo agreed to pay $800,000 to settle a separate FCRA based lawsuit filed by theFederal Trade Commission.[5][6]
In February 2014, a unanimous panel of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed Judge Wright's dismissal and remanded the case.[7] JudgeDiarmuid O'Scannlain, joined by JudgesSusan P. Graber andCarlos 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
TheSupreme Court of the United States granted Spokeo's petition for a writ ofcertiorari and one-hour oforal arguments were heard on November 2, 2015, where DeputyU.S. Solicitor General Malcom Stewart appeared for the government as a friend in support of Robins.[8][9][10]
On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in favor of Spokeo,vacating andremanding by a vote of 6-2.[11] JusticeSamuel Alito, joined by Chief JusticeJohn Roberts, as well as JusticesAnthony Kennedy,Clarence Thomas,Stephen Breyer, andElena Kagan, wrote that the circuit below had failed to establish that Robins hadstanding to file the lawsuit underArticle Three of the United States Constitution.[3]: 439
The Court first explained that the Constitution'sCase 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 asrisk 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]
JusticeClarence 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 thecommon law distinction betweenprivate rights andpublic rights as articulated byWilliam Blackstone.[13]
JusticeRuth Bader Ginsburg, joined bySonia 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
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 anamicus curiae brief filed by theConsumer 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 ofcertiorari, but this was denied.[16]
The case was settled through mediation in March 2019.[17]