Spain Mexico
Philadelphia, PA Cherry Hill, NJ New York, NY State College, PA 1-866-LOCKSLAW
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Locks Law Firm
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Get Started
  • No win, no fee
  • Free consultation
  • Home
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ
  • Practice Areas
  • Practice Areas
    • All Practice Areas
    • Medical Malpractice and Nursing Home Abuse
    • Environmental and Toxic Torts
    • Catastrophic Personal Injuries
    • Dangerous Drugs & Devices
  • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Get Started
  • Spain Mexico   Spanish
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ

    One of the most prominent personal injury law firms in the tri-state region, the Locks Law Firm is steadfastly committed to protecting the rights of seriously injured victims.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Medical Malpractice and Nursing Home Abuse
    • Nursing Home Abuse and Neglect
    • Hospital Acquired Infections
    • Medication Errors
    • Misdiagnosis / Failure to Diagnose
    • Surgical Errors
    • Needle Stick - CRPS

    Medical malpractice is any act by a health care provider that deviates from accepted standards of medical care and results in the personal injury, disability, or wrongful death of a patient. Nursing home abuse or negligence can take many forms. It can include physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, neglect, negligent care, and even financial exploitation.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Environmental and Toxic Torts
    • Asbestos and Mesothelioma
    • Benzene
    • Chemical Exposure
    • Manganese Exposure
    • Natural Resource Damages
    • Toxic Injuries
    • Workplace Exposure
    • Dacthal Herbicide Ban
    • PERC Exposure
    • Paraquat

    Exposure to toxic chemicals in the workplace or environment can cause serious, sometimes fatal health problems, including cancer.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Catastrophic Personal Injuries
    • Premises Liability
    • Burns and Chemical Burns
    • Traumatic Brain Injuries
    • Spinal Cord Injuries
    • Wrongful Death

    Catastrophic personal injuries include brain and spinal cord injuries, severe burns, carbon monoxide poisoning and, most seriously, death.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Dangerous Drugs & Devices
    • Allergan Breast Implant Recall
    • Hernia Mesh
    • IVC Filters
    • NEC Baby Formula

    At the Locks Law Firm, our pharmaceutical litigation and defective drug lawyers are committed to serving personal injury victims and are well versed in the product liability laws that protect consumers.

    Free Case Evaluation

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

(215) 893-0100

Cherry Hill, NJ

(856) 663-8200

New York, NY

(212) 838-3333

State College, PA

844-777-2529

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

The Curtis Center
Suite 720 East
601 Walnut Street

Cherry Hill, NJ

801 North Kings Highway

New York, NY

675 Third Avenue | 8th Floor

State College, PA

1376 Haymaker Road

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

[email protected]

Cherry Hill, NJ

[email protected]

New York, NY

[email protected]

State College, PA

[email protected]

Blog

The Supreme Court’s Recent Decision in Spokeo and its Impact on Consumer Class Actions.

The Supreme Court released its highly anticipated decision in Spokeo v. Robins Monday.  Corporate interest groups pushed the Spokeo case as a vehicle to kill consumer class actions based on privacy invasions (i.e. data breach cases), with an eye towards attacking other consumer class actions in the future.  The Supreme Court on Monday dashed those hopes for Spokeo, instead issuing a narrow ruling, and remanding the case to the Ninth Circuit to consider whether the Plaintiff satisfied the requirement of “concreteness” in the two pronged test for Article III standing, while making clear that intangible injuries or the increased risk of future injury could satisfy the test.  The decision not only failed to destroy privacy class actions, it may ultimately serve to bolster consumer’s claims in these important cases.

 

The complaint in Spokeo alleged claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.  Defendant, Spokeo, Inc. operates a “people search engine” which permits a user to input a person’s name, phone number or email address, and after completing a search of various databases Spokeo returns a report about the person searched.  Spokeo markets its services to a number of different people, including employers doing background checks on prospective employees.  The Plaintiff, Thomas Robins, was an unemployed man who was looking for work.  He found out that Spokeo had produced a profile about him which indicated that he was married, had children, was in his 50s, had a job, was relatively affluent and held a graduate degree, it also included a picture which it claimed was of Mr. Robins.  None of that information was true.  Mr. Robins alleged that as a result of the incorrect profile Spokeo created of him hurt his chances of getting a job (for which he was actively searching) by making him appear overqualified, expectant of a higher salary than employers wanted to play, or less mobile because of family responsibilities.  As a result, Mr. Robins filed a class-action complaint against Spokeo alleging willful violations of the FCRA.

 

The FCRA requires companies like Spokeo which regularly disseminate information relating to an individual’s “credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics or mode of living.”  It requires companies dealing in such information to (1) follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum accuracy of the reports; (2) notify providers and users of the information of their responsibilities under the FCRA; (3) to limit the circumstances in which the company provides reports for employment purposes; and (4) to post a toll free number for consumers to request their reports.  Companies which willfully violate the FCRA with respect to any individual are liable to that individual for (among other things) actual damages or statutory damages of $100 to $1000 per violation, as well as attorneys fees, costs of suit, and potentially punitive damages.

 

The District Court dismissed Mr. Robins’ complaint, finding that the complaint did not adequately plead an injury in fact, and therefore Mr. Robins had no standing to bring claims under the FCRA.  The Ninth Circuit reversed that ruling, finding that Mr. Robins had adequately pled an injury in fact.  The Supreme Court granted certification on the question of standing.

 

The Supreme Court has previously held that “to establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”  Spokeo v. Robins, 578 U.S. ____, (2016) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (internal quotations omitted).

 

In Spokeo, the Court focused on the requirements of particularization and concreteness, and the real work in the opinion addresses the question of concreteness.  It has long been the rule that in order for an injury to be particularized it “must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.”  Id. (citing DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 (2006)).  With regard to “concrete” injury the Court held that the term concrete is meant to convey “the usual meaning of the term – ‘real’ and not ‘abstract.’”  However, the Court cautioned that the term concrete is not synonymous with “tangible”, and that intangible harms may constitute concrete, but that determining whether intangible injuries are injuries in fact, “both history and the judgment of Congress play important roles.”  Id. With regard to the role of history in the analysis, the Court noted that in considering whether an intangible harm constitutes an injury in fact a court should consider whether it has a close relationship to a harm that has traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit in English or American Courts.  The Court also noted that Congress is well positioned to determine intangible harms that meet the Article III requirement of standing and therefore, and may “elevate to the status of legally cognizable injuries …injuries that were previously inadequate at law” and therefore its decision to give standing to a wrong is important, although not dispositive as to the question of Article III standing. Id. (quoting Lujan at 578).

 

The Court expressly noted that the “risk of real harm” can satisfy the requirement of concreteness. Id. (Giving examples including Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013)).  In the context of the FCRA claims brought by Robins, the Court held that in the FCRA (1) congress sought to curb the dissemination of false information; and (2) a “bare procedural violation” will not satisfy the requirements of Article III as it may result in no harm. (Giving the example of an incorrect zip code).

 

The Court’s citation of Clapper is of particular interest for firms which handle data breach litigation.  Defendants regularly argue that data breach victims, who cannot further allege specific allegations of actual identity theft have no standing to bring claims for the increased risk of future identity theft.  In Clapper, the Supreme Court held that risk of harm or “threatened injury must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact” in order to provide Art. III standing.  133 S. Ct. at 1148 (citations omitted).  While certain district courts have questioned whether an increased risk of harm provides Article III standing, the Supreme Court in Spokeo has reaffirmed that an increased risk of harm can form an actionable injury for Article III purposes.  This reaffirmation comports with the most recent decisions on the increased risk of harm associated with data breaches from the Seventh Circuit, Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Grp., LLC, 794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015) and Lewert v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6766 (7th Cir. 2016).  It also comports with the longstanding law in the Ninth Circuit, Krottner v. Starbucks Corp., 628 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2010); In re Adobe Sys Privacy Litig., 66 F. Supp. 3d 1197 (N.D. Cal. 2014).

 

Ultimately, the Spokeo decision did not accomplish what corporate interest groups hoped, and ultimately, it may well serve to bolster consumer’s rights in claims for breach of privacy claims like those brought in data breach class actions.

James Barry

Guest Author
May 18, 2016 James Barry

Tell Us About Your Case

If you can read this, please avoid filling the following input field or your submission may be marked as spam.
Thank you for contacting us! We will be in touch with you shortly.
Uh oh. There was a problem processing your request. Please try again!
Previous Entry

So Who Let the Dog Out: Judging Responsibility in Dog Attacks

Next Entry

Extra Efforts Saved Millions

Recent Entries

  • IARC’s Latest Evaluation: Automotive Gasoline Causes Cancer
  • How Personal Technology Can Help You Navigate Legal Matters
  • Seeking Justice: Locks Law Firm Represents Victims of Northeast Philadelphia Plane Crash
  • "Judicial Hellhole"
  • Dacthal Pesticide Ban: EPA Falls Short Again, Inaction Fails to Protect the Unborn 

Archive

  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • December 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • January 2023
  • August 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • February 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • September 2011
  • January 2011
  • November 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
1-866-LOCKSLAW
[email protected]
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn YouTube
2021 Best Lawyers
Martindale-Hubble Award Ten Leaders

Copyright © 2025 Locks Law Firm. Made by Mindlark.

Locks Law Firm only provides legal advice after having entered into an attorney client relationship, which our website specifically does not create. Conversations that originate from website messaging, chat or other two way web based engagement  do not create an attorney client relationship. It is imperative that any action taken be done on the advice of counsel. Because every case is different, the description of awards and cases previously handled do not guarantee a similar outcome in current or future cases. The firm practices law in Pennsylvania, New Jersey & New York as Locks Law Firm. Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers in America and other organizations that rate attorneys are not designations that have been approved by the State Supreme Courts or the American Bar Association.