Privacy Class Actions Post-Spokeo: Leveraging Injury-In-Fact Requirements

Description

On May 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Spokeo v. Robins ruling confirmed that the injury-in-fact requirements for Article III standing for class action plaintiffs requires that the plaintiff have suffered an injury, which is both concrete and particularized. Though in privacy class actions plaintiffs can often establish a breach, showing a concrete injury resulting from the breach is much more difficult.

Counsel in privacy class actions are capitalizing on Spokeo, requesting courts to examine the injury requirements in pending cases by raising standing issues which would prevent the proposed class from being certified or result in decertification. Spokeo will also likely be used as ammunition for dismissal of claims where the only injury alleged is prospective misuse of stolen data and where plaintiffs allege only bare procedural violations.

The Court did, however, reiterate that intangible injuries can be concrete and explained that its ruling does not mean that the risk of real harm cannot satisfy the requirement of concreteness. The Court also left open the door for further disputes on standing in its acknowledgment that a violation of a procedural right granted by statute can, in some circumstances, be sufficient to constitute injury-in-fact.

Listen as our authoritative panel examines the effect of Spokeo on privacy class actions and provides in-depth analysis of the injury-in-fact requirements for Article III standing in the context of privacy injury.