Post-Spofeeo: The Impact of Article III Standing on Consumer Finance Litigation

摘要

In May 2016, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, reaffirming that Article III standing, the ability to have a case heard in federal court, "requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation." While Congress can independently identify intangible harms that may form the basis for an award of statutory damages, in order to meet minimum Article III requirements for standing to sue, an injured plaintiff must still show that she suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest, that is concrete and particularized, and that is actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. The Supreme Court emphasized that concreteness is different from particularization, holding that, "[f]or an injury to be 'particularized,' it 'must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way,'" while for it to be concrete, it must be real and not abstract In other words, "a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm," is insufficient to establish injury in fact.