Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins

Last updated

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 2, 2015
Decided May 16, 2016
Full case nameSpokeo, Inc., Petitioner v. Thomas Robins
Docket no. 13-1339
Citations578 U.S. 330 ( more )
136 S. Ct. 1540; 194 L. Ed. 2d 635
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorFinding standing, 742 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 2014); cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015).
SubsequentFinding standing, 867 F.3d 1108 (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
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Kagan
ConcurrenceThomas
DissentGinsburg, 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 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]

Contents

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

Related Research Articles

Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (1951), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that groups could sue to challenge their inclusion on the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations. The decision was fractured on its reasoning, with each of the Justices in the majority writing separate opinions.

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the law regarding standing to sue and mootness.

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the standing of taxpayers to challenge state tax laws in federal court. The Court unanimously ruled that state taxpayers did not have standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, which was joined by all of the justices except for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who concurred separately.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diarmuid O'Scannlain</span> American judge

Diarmuid Fionntain O'Scannlain is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. His chambers are located in Portland, Oregon.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2002 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down twelve per curiam opinions during its 2002 term, which began October 7, 2002 and concluded October 5, 2003.

Spokeo is a people search website that aggregates data from online and offline sources.

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning whether federal law restricted the United States Navy's ability to use sonar during drills given the possibility of a harmful effect on marine mammals such as whales.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2000 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2000 term, which began October 2, 2000 and concluded September 30, 2001.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2011 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span> 2011 decisions of the US supreme court

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down fourteen per curiam opinions during its 2011 term, which began October 3, 2011 and concluded September 30, 2012.

Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court answered whether an American court may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign company based on the fact that a subsidiary of the company acts on its behalf in the jurisdictional state. The court held that an American company cannot be sued for conduct occurring outside the United States and American courts do not have jurisdiction of such a claim.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2015 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eighteen per curiam opinions during its 2015 term, which began October 5, 2015 and concluded October 2, 2016.

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified procedures for removing a class action lawsuit from state court to federal court. The case involved a dispute about revenue from oil and gas leases in which the defendant filed a motion to remove the case from a state court in Kansas to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. However, the plaintiff argued that the defendant's motion was defective because the defendant's notice of removal did not include evidence demonstrating that the amount in controversy satisfied the jurisdictional threshold. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas ultimately ruled the case should be returned to the state court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit declined to review the district court's decision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2016 term, which began October 3, 2016 and concluded October 1, 2017.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2017 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2017 term, which began October 2, 2017, and concluded September 30, 2018.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the constitutionality of California's FACT Act, which mandated that crisis pregnancy centers provide certain disclosures about state services. The law required that licensed centers post visible notices that other options for pregnancy, including abortion, are available from state-sponsored clinics. It also mandated that unlicensed centers post notice of their unlicensed status. The centers, typically run by Christian non-profit groups, challenged the act on the basis that it violated their free speech. After prior reviews in lower courts, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, asking "Whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the free speech clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment."

Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case related to antitrust laws related to third-party resellers. The case centers on Apple Inc.'s App Store, and whether consumers of apps offered through the store have Article III standing under federal antitrust laws to bring a class-action antitrust lawsuit against Apple for practices it uses to regulate the App Store. The case centers on the applicability of the "Illinois Brick doctrine" established by the Supreme Court in 1977 via Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, which determined that indirect consumers of products lack Article III standing to bring antitrust charges against producers of those products. In its 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that since consumers purchased apps directly through Apple, that they have standing under Illinois Brick to seek antitrust charges against Apple.

Frank v. Gaos, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a per curiam decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in a case concerning the practice of cy pres settlements in class action lawsuits. Following oral argument, the court asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing whether the parties had Article III standing to pursue the case in federal courts. Supplemental briefing was completed on December 21, 2018. On March 20, 2019, the court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit to address the plaintiffs’ standing in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down seven per curiam opinions during its 2018 term, which began October 1, 2018, and concluded October 6, 2019.

Thompson v. Hebdon, 589 U.S. ___ (2019), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance. The Ninth Circuit's decision was vacated and remanded by the Supreme Court.

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with standing under Article III of the Constitution related to class-action suits against private defendants. In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that only those that can show concrete harm have standing to seek damages against private defendants.

References

  1. ↑ Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,No. 13-1339 , 578 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1540, slip op. at 8-11 (2016).
  2. ↑ Spokeo, slip op. at 11.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Note, The Supreme Court, 2015 Term — Leading Cases , 130 Harv. L. Rev. 437 (2016).
  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. ↑ 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. ↑ "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. ↑ Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., 742F.3d409 (9th Cir.2014).
  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. ↑ 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. ↑ "Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins". Oyez Project . Retrieved February 12, 2018.
  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. ↑ Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1550.
  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. ↑ Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., 867F.3d1108 (9th Cir.2017).
  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. ↑ Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,138S. Ct.931(2018).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.