PogoWasRight.org

Menu
  • About
  • Privacy
Menu

Spokeo IV: Cert Denied and the Circuit Splits Left Behind

Posted on February 17, 2018June 25, 2025 by Dissent

Jennifer Jackson, Kristin Petersen, and Jay Warren of Bryan Cave write:

On January 22, 2018, the United States Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari in Spokeo v. Robins – bringing an end to an appellate saga that started in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before heading up to the Supreme Court, back to the Ninth Circuit on remand, and then finally back to the Supreme Court on Spokeo’s petition.

Spokeo, Inc. (“Spokeo”), a consumer reporting agency, filed the writ petition after the Ninth Circuit, considering the case on remand from the Supreme Court, decided in 867 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Spokeo III”) (see Client Alert here), that Spokeo’s publication of inaccurate information about the plaintiff in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (“FCRA”), constituted concrete injuries to the plaintiff’s interest in accurate credit reporting for purposes of standing under Article III of the Constitution.

In denying Spokeo’s petition, the Supreme Court declined to provide further clarity around its decision in 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (“Spokeo II”) regarding the standard for determining what constitutes a “concrete harm,” which must be established in addition to a particularized harm, as part of the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing. While the loop is now closed on the Ninth Circuit’s evaluation of this plaintiff’s standing, Spokeo I-IV left federal district and appellate courts split over how the “concreteness” standard is properly applied when analyzing a plaintiff’s Article III standing, particularly under federal consumer protection statutes such as the FCRA, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”).

Read more on JDSupra.

Related posts:

  • SCOTUS vacates and remands Spokeo over “concrete” injury prong of Article III standing
Category: BreachesBusinessCourt

Post navigation

← Update on Colorado’s Proposed Privacy and Cybersecurity Legislation
HHS asked to rule on whether Portland, Maine violated patient privacy laws →

Now more than ever

Search

Contact Me

Email: info@pogowasright.org

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Categories

Recent Posts

  • Flightradar24 receives reprimand for violating aircraft data privacy rights
  • Nebraska Attorney General Sues GM and OnStar Over Alleged Privacy Violations
  • Federal Court Allows Privacy Related Claims to Proceed in a Proposed Class Action Lawsuit Against Motorola
  • Italian Garante Adopts Statement on Health Data and AI
  • Trump administration is launching a new private health tracking system with Big Tech’s help
  • Attorney General James Takes Action to Protect Sensitive Personal Information of Tens of Millions of People
  • Searches of Your Private Data in the Cloud Amount to Illicit State Action

RSS Recent Posts on DataBreaches.net

  • Highlands Oncology Group notifies 113,575 people after ransomware attack by Medusa
  • Oklahoma Substantially Amends Its Data Breach Notification Statute
  • Hackers leak purported Aeroflot data as Russia denies breach
  • Palo Alto Networks investigating ransomware threat related to SharePoint exploitation
  • Six months after discovering an attack, Northwest Radiologists notifies almost 350,000 Washington State residents
©2025 PogoWasRight.org. All rights reserved.
Menu
  • About
  • Privacy