The Supreme Court Holds That A Statutory Violation, Without Actual, Concrete Harm, Is Insufficient To Give Rise To Article III Standing

• Published date: 12 November 2021
• Subject Matter: Consumer Protection, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Class Actions, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Personal Injury, Dodd-Frank, Consumer Protection Act
• Law Firm: Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
• Author: Mr Joel Kurtzberg, Adam S. Mintz and Austin G. Popham

To establish standing under Article III of the Constitution of the United States, a plaintiff must demonstrate an injury-in-fact. The Supreme Court of the United States previously explained in the seminal opinion of Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, that a plaintiff must have suffered an injury-in-fact that is both "concrete and particularized" and "actual or imminent" ' i.e., abstract or speculative harm will not suffice. 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). The Court in Lujan and its later opinions did not address, however, whether a violation of a federal statute, standing alone, could satisfy Article III's injury-in-fact requirement.

In TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021),¹ the Supreme Court addressed that question and concluded that violation of a federal statute, in itself, is insufficient to create an injury-in-fact for Article III purposes. The Court explained that in determining whether a plaintiff has suffered an injury-in-fact that is sufficiently concrete to give rise to Article III standing, courts "should assess whether the alleged injury to the plaintiff has a 'close relationship'" to injuries that are "'traditionally' recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts." This may include both tangible (e.g., physical and monetary) and intangible (e.g., reputational) harms. When making this determination, courts are not relieved of their responsibility to conduct this analysis by virtue of statutory causes of action created by Congress. Those causes of actions are instructive but not dispositive.

I. Article III's Injury-in-Fact Requirement

Article III of the Constitution of the United States gives the federal judiciary the power to decide only live "cases" or "controversies." Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 819-20 (1997). For a plaintiff to establish standing under Article III, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) an injury-in-fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressability. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). To establish the requisite injury-in-fact, a plaintiff must show an injury that is "concrete and particularized" and "actual or imminent." Id. at 560. The injury must be "real" and not "abstract," Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016), to prevent the courts from issuing advisory opinions or general oversight over the people or other branches of government. California v. Texas, 141 S. Ct. 2104, 2116 (2021).

In 2016, the Supreme Court in Spokeo, reviewed named plaintiff Robins' standing to bring claims against petitioner Spokeo, an online "people search engine." 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016). Robins alleged Spokeo published inaccurate information about...