Supreme Court Hands Spokeo Partial Win in Class-Action Lawsuit

Data broker Spokeo was handed a partial victory Monday when the Supreme Court ruled that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals used incomplete analysis in deciding whether Virginia resident Thomas Robins, who filed a class-action lawsuit against the company for publishing incorrect information about him, suffered any "concrete" harm (see 1509090002). In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court sent Spokeo v. Robins back to the lower court, saying it "failed to consider both aspects of the injury-in-fact requirement." Justice Samuel Alito said in his majority opinion that a plaintiff is required "to allege an injury that is both 'concrete and particularized.'" The 9th Circuit focused on particularity but "overlooked" concreteness, and needs to consider both, he wrote. But Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, with Ginsburg writing, "I ... see no utility in returning this case to the Ninth Circuit to underscore what Robins' complaint already conveys concretely: Spokeo's misinformation 'cause[s] actual harm to [his] employment prospects.'" Robins sued "people search engine" Spokeo for publishing inaccurate information about his profile, "alleging that the company willfully failed to comply with the" Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires that consumer reporting agencies reasonably follow procedures to provide accurate data, the opinion said. Failure to do so results in penalties for a company. The 9th Circuit ruled Robins had legal standing to sue, but Spokeo appealed to the high court. Privacy and consumer groups sided with Robins, saying individuals shouldn't be limited in their ability to file claims since credit reports could affect loans and employment eligibility. "While we are disappointed in today's ruling, the Court has preserved the ability of citizens to protect their privacy rights under federal law,” said G.S. Hans, Center for Democracy and Technology policy counsel, in a statement. “The Court definitively recognized that intangible injuries, like those that implicate privacy rights, can be protected by private parties in federal court, which is a positive result. In practical terms, this is a punt -- one that privacy advocates will likely debate for the foreseeable future.”