Plaintiff Thomas Robins claims the website potentially provided prospective employers with erroneous information, such as a misrepresentation of his educational background and wealth, when in reality he was struggling to find employment. Robins claims that Spokeo was in violation of the FCRA by failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that the information the site compiled on him was accurate.
Spokeo argues that not only is it not a consumer reporting agency, and thus not bound by the FCRA, but also that the plaintiff cannot demonstrate any “actual harm” and therefore does not have the standing to sue according to Article III of the United States Constitution. Furthermore, Spokeo claims that allowing the class action to move forward could potentially open the floodgates for a deluge of “no-injury” class actions, an argument that many other major tech companies, including Facebook, Google and Yahoo all supported in filed amicus briefs.
The case of Thomas Robins v. Spokeo, Inc. was initially tossed in 2010 after a judge found the plaintiff to lack standing due to the absence of any actual injury. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed that ruling in February 2014, claiming that Spokeo’s alleged FCRA violation “does not require proof of actual damages,” and that Robins’ could “suffer a violation of the statutory right without the suffering of actual damage.”
The Supreme Court will not rule on whether or not Robins himself suffered any “actual harm” but rather they will determine whether or not Article III of the Constitution permits a plaintiff standing to sue for a violation of a federal statute (in this case, the FCRA) in which individuals may not have suffered any actual harm.
Source: Law360.com, 04/27/2014
Posted: May 7, 2015