Justices appear split on injury needed for suit over incorrect Spokeo profile
Justice Sonia Sotomayor offered a single person’s perspective in oral arguments on Monday in a case being watched by companies such as Twitter and Facebook that fear lawsuits over wrong information posted online.
At issue in Spokeo v. Robins is whether companies that publish false things about consumers can be sued under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, even if there is no showing of a concrete injury. The law authorizes damages of up to $1,000 for violations. Among the publications that covered the oral arguments are the New York Times, the National Law Journal (sub. req.), the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today and SCOTUSblog.
During the arguments, conservative and liberal justices appeared split on whether Spokeo could be sued for misstatements about plaintiff Thomas Robins in the would-be class action, the stories report. Spokeo said Robins had a graduate degree (he didn’t), was employed (he wasn’t), and was married with children (it wasn’t true).
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said information that appeared harmless could actually be damaging. She went on to offer an example. “I will tell you that I know plenty of single people who look at whether someone who’s proposed to date is married or not,” she said. “So if you’re not married and there’s a report out there saying you are, that’s a potential injury.”
A lawyer for Spokeo, Andrew Pincus, argued Congress could not authorize suits absent a concrete injury. The “irreducible constitutional minimum for standing” is injury in fact, he said, meaning the plaintiff experienced “actual or imminent, tangible harm.” Harm to credit or a missed job opportunity would satisfy that standard, he said.
Only Sotomayor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared to support the idea that Robins could sue as long as he alleged violation of a right created by statute, without a showing of concrete harm, according to SCOTUSblog. Some of the more conservative justices, on the other hand, appeared to agree that actual harm is needed.
According to SCOTUSblog, several justices supported a narrower option: that Robins could sue because he was actually injured. “This would allow Robins’ lawsuit to go forward,” SCOTUSblog says, “without forcing the court to choose between opening the federal courts to frivolous but possibly massive class-action lawsuits (Spokeo’s prediction if Robins were to prevail) and closing the courthouse doors to potentially important privacy, civil rights, environmental, and patent lawsuits (Robins’ prediction if Spokeo were to prevail).”
SCOTUSblog nonetheless deems the possibility of a ruling on the constitutional issue “too close to call.”
Related articles:
ABA Journal: “Supreme Court weighs the right to sue an Internet data site”
ABAJournal.com: “Chemerinsky: What are the limits of congressional power to authorize suits?”
ABAJournal.com: “Consumer class actions tied to credit law will be affected by SCOTUS Article III case granted today”
ABAJournal.com: “Job hunter who claimed Spokeo published wrong information may sue, 9th Circuit says”
