Supreme Court Says Plaintiff Must Show Actual Harm From Bogus Profile Created By Spokeo

from the just-being-incorrect-doesn't-necessarily-make-one-liable dept

There's no greater sin than being wrong on the internet. But can you build a federal case out of it? Thomas Robins tried to do exactly that by filing a potential class action lawsuit against Spokeo ("the people search engine") for posting incorrect information about him to its website.

The district court tossed his case for lack of standing, only to see it revived by the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court, which found that Robins could potentially demonstrate that Spokeo's incorrect information may have violated Robins' personal statutory rights. This eliminated the class action option, but granted him the standing to pursue this on his own behalf.

Now, Robins has reached the end of the line and there's not much there for him. The Supreme Court has reversed the Appeals Court's judgment in favor of Robin's and booted the case back to determine whether Robins can actually be granted standing, considering that to date he has yet to show he has suffered any "actual injury" from Spokeo's inaccurate information.

This analysis was incomplete. As we have explained in our prior opinions, the injury-in-fact requirement requires a plaintiff to allege an injury that is both “concrete and particularized.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U. S. 167, 180– 181 (2000) (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit’s analysis focused on the second characteristic (particularity), but it overlooked the first (concreteness). We therefore vacate the decision below and remand for the Ninth Circuit to consider both aspects of the injury-in-fact requirement.

So, the decision is mostly procedural and doesn't address any questions concerning Spokeo's gathering and dissemination of possibly incorrect information. As alleged by Robins, Spokeo basically has no idea who he really is.

His profile, he asserts, states that he is married, has children, is in his 50’s, has a job, is relatively affluent, and holds a graduate degree. App. 14. According to Robins’ complaint, all of this information is incorrect.

If all of this is incorrect, then one might think Robins should thank Spokeo for putting a more positive spin on his life. But Robins wasn't happy with the bogus results and claims this entirely positive (if entirely false) profile has cost him employment opportunities.

The problem with his allegations, though, is that Robins has yet to allege anything more than a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by Spokeo. And while violations can result in $100-1000/screwup payouts to claimants for inaccuracies, the Supreme Court expect Robins to produce more than allegations if he hopes to collect from Spokeo. [Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen emailed me to point out that Spokeo came up on a motion to dismiss where the allegations are what matter, so these inaccuracies could result in collected fines, even if actual harm isn't proven. He also pointed out that the case is back before the Appeals Court so it can further examine Robins' allegations, which it failed to do with enough particularity the first time around.]

As the Court notes, plenty of false information can be circulated without ever generating "concrete, particularized" harm.

Robins cannot satisfy the demands of Article III by alleging a bare procedural violation. A violation of one of the FCRA’s procedural requirements may result in no harm. For example, even if a consumer reporting agency fails to provide the required notice to a user of the agency’s consumer information, that information regardless may be entirely accurate. In addition, not all inaccuracies cause harm or present any material risk of harm. An example that comes readily to mind is an incorrect zip code. It is difficult to imagine how the dissemination of an incorrect zip code, without more, could work any concrete harm.

Without more information on the alleged harm, Robins has no standing. Robins may be able to produce this, but he'll be doing it in front of the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court. The dissenting opinion, however, finds Robins has already satisfied this requirement by stating the misinformation's negative impact on his ability to obtain employment.

Because of the misinformation, Robins stated, he encountered “[imminent and ongoing] actual harm to [his] employment prospects.” Ibid. As Robins elaborated on brief, Spokeo’s report made him appear overqualified for jobs he might have gained, expectant of a higher salary than employers would be willing to pay, and less mobile because of family responsibilities.

But as it stands, Robins hasn't produced enough evidence to satisfy what the Supreme Court is looking for in terms of harm, and it's leaving that up to the court that revived the case. "Jobs he might have gained" doesn't sound very "concrete."

There's no doubt information gathered without sufficient vetting will inevitably produce misleading or wholly incorrect "profiles." Spokeo's bulk collection seems to falling short of its stated goal of being a "people search engine," at least in Robins' case, but if he wants to pursue this further for himself -- much less as the leading representative for class of similarly-harmed individuals, he'll at least need to show he has actually been harmed by the misinformation, rather than theoretically harmed by his perception of employers' responses to the false data.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: actual harm, privacy, searches, supreme court, thomas robins
Companies: spokeo


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Pixelation, 17 May 2016 @ 3:58pm

    Brilliant!

    So apparently Thomas Robins is a poor, loner drop-out and wants to make sure everyone knows it.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    afn29129 (profile), 17 May 2016 @ 4:41pm

    Try again 9th

    Try again 9th. Try again some more. We'll keep telling you to try again and maybe one day you will get a clue.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2016 @ 5:09pm

    Maybe it's about a different thomas robins. What are the odds he is the only person with that name on this plaent.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 17 May 2016 @ 6:02pm

    How to get it done...

    I suppose all of the Supreme Court justices' Spokeo profiles need updating.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2016 @ 6:02pm

    And you may ask yourself
    Where is that large automobile?
    And you may tell yourself
    This is not my beautiful house!
    And you may tell yourself
    This is not my beautiful wife!

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2016 @ 7:38pm

    Should peeping toms...

    that don't cause any "actual harm" be permitted?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2016 @ 1:09am

      Re: Should peeping toms...

      Indeed.
      I think there's at least a case to be made that collating false information about someone and presenting it to the public is wrong.
      This seems like the no-fly lists.
      And I'd argue it's on the other end of the (so-called) right to be forgotten. Where that one sees people wanting to expunge (many times) relevant factual information about themselves, here the information is poor, false, not vetted and more or less automatically aggregated.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Wendy Cockcroft, 19 May 2016 @ 6:52am

        Re: Re: Should peeping toms...

        As the subject of a troll's smear campaign I can only say that websites which claim to hold accurate information on individuals and groups that won't change that information when presented with the relevant information can't be considered reliable.

        Thomas Robins may or may not have a legitimate grievance, but Spokeo has just proven that it can't be trusted as a source of information. Surely to goodness the loss of credibility to Spokeo is the greater harm? And Mr. Robins just Streisanded it all over the internet. Well played, sir. Well played!

        link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John Snape, 18 May 2016 @ 12:12am

    Maybe, just maybe...

    His outlay of cash to his lawyers is the only harm he's suffered (financially, that is).

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 18 May 2016 @ 2:18am

    Would you want to work for a company that relies on Spokeo for providing background on potential employees?

    Spokeo is a bit notorious for being inaccurate, and their target demographic seems to be regular people who want to dig up dirt on neighbors (or enemies).

    Spokeo has never been listed as one of the sources used to provide information about me in those various times when corporations have looked to see if I am worthy, have a good credit rating, etc. Even the "real" data aggregators sometimes get wrong information, but they actually want to be accurate (there are those pesky penalties for ignoring they screwed up after all). Spokeo just wants to get paid.

    Right in the privacy terms on Spokeo they admit the data isn't verified, meets no real requirements, and shouldn't be used in that way.
    http://www.spokeo.com/terms-of-use-consumer

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2016 @ 4:49am

    Just imagine the shit storm if Robins were to publish incorrect information about Spokeo on his website site.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2016 @ 12:53pm

    Not reversed, vacated.

    There's a big difference. One is a loss, the other is... not a loss. "Vacated and remanded" is a do-over.

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.