Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
- Decided
- May 16, 2016
- Docket
- 13-1339
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 7,043 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that “the injury-in-fact requirement requires a plaintiff to allege an injury that is both ‘concrete and particularized’ ” (citation omitted) — East Iowa Plastics, Inc. v. PI, Inc. (2016)
- holding that bare allegation concerning procedural violation of federal statute was insufficient to satisfy injury in fact requirements — Gould v. Farmers Ins. Exch. (2018)
- holding that particular procedural violations alleged did not meet the concreteness standard to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement — Garland v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg. Inc. (2018)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice ALITOdelivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether respondent Robins has standing to maintain an action in federal court against petitioner Spokeo under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 (FCRA or Act), 84 Stat. 1127, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
Spokeo operates a "people search engine." If an individual visits Spokeo's Web site and inputs a person's name, a phone number, or an e-mail address, Spokeo conducts a computerized search in a wide variety of databases and provides information about the subject of the search. Spokeo performed such a search for information about Robins, and some of the information it gathered and then disseminated was incorrect. When Robins learned of these inaccuracies, he filed a complaint on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.