Law Commons^™

Rethinking Article Iii Standing In Class Action Consumer Protection Cases Following Spokeo V. Robins, Joshua Scott Olin

University of Miami Business Law Review

The Supreme Court recently handed down the landmark decision of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, holding that a “bare procedural violation” of a federal consumer protection statute—namely, the Fair Credit Reporting Act—was not enough to satisfy Article III standing because the injury alleged was particularized but not concrete. After Spokeo, those wishing to bring suit based on consumer protection statutes will have a much more difficult time showing that the injury suffered was “concrete” enough to confer Article III standing and, as a result, the term “consumer protection” will be rendered meaningless. Unless the Supreme Court revisits the issue …