In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals and handed a victory to Spokeo.com in their fight against Thomas Robins. Spokeo is a data broker that offers its subscribers access to its database, which contains personal information about hundreds of thousands of people.

In this case, Spokeo published a profile about Robins that was completely false. The profile stated that Robins was married, wealthy, employed, and had children. In reality, Robins was single, unemployed, and had little personal wealth. Robins claimed that the false information hurt him while he was searching for job prospects.

The claim falls under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This Act is in place to ensure that consumer reporting agencies provide accurate information about everyone they publish. The Act intends to prevent consumer reporting companies from posting incorrect information about individuals that could potentially interfere with people attempting to get credit or find employment.

When the Supreme Court threw out the Court of Appeals holding, they sent it back to the Court of Appeals for further consideration. The Justices gave Robins a chance to attempt to prove he suffered actual tangible harm from the publishing of the false information. Justice Alito, who wrote the opinion, wanted Robins to show a “concrete and particularized” injury with proof of losses.

Many websites that collect and distribute personal information were paying close attention to this case. Had Robins won, there would be far-reaching implications for companies like YP.com and Facebook, who would face much more liability if they published false or incorrect information. That could potentially open up the door for extremely large class action suits that could cost these companies billions.

This case is a concrete example of the virtual world’s effect on “real life.”  One side argued that the type of incorrect information that Spokeo claimed for Robins, in and of itself, was not enough to cause him “harm.” But what if potential employers and recruiters saw that information and overlooked him, solely because they thought he was a wealthy and employed individual? For someone who is looking for employment, that loss could be devastating.

The implications of ubiquitous publishing of nearly everyone’s personal information are vast. The Supreme Court’s decision to send this case back to the Court of Appeals for further investigation shows that the high court takes this matter very seriously.

Contact Revision Legal’s team of experienced internet attorneys through our contact form, or call 855-473-8474, for more information about personal information that appears online.

Image courtesy of Flickr user Ministerio TIC Columbia

Spokeo v. Robins: Article III Standing and the Future of Data Privacy Litigation

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), is one of the most consequential data privacy decisions in recent Supreme Court history — not because of what it decided, but because of the question it sent back to the lower courts. The ruling forced a reckoning with the constitutional threshold for pursuing data privacy claims in federal court.

Article III’s Injury-in-Fact Requirement

Article III of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies, which requires plaintiffs to demonstrate standing — a concrete and particularized injury in fact, caused by the defendant’s conduct, and redressable by a court. In Spokeo, Justice Alito’s majority opinion held that Congress’s creation of a statutory right does not automatically confer Article III standing. A plaintiff must still show a concrete injury — not merely a violation of a statutory right in the abstract. The Court distinguished particularized injuries from concrete ones, holding that both elements are required and that an injury can be real even if not economic — but it cannot be entirely hypothetical.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act and Data Broker Obligations

The FCRA (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.) imposes specific accuracy and procedural obligations on consumer reporting agencies — entities that collect and sell consumer information for credit, employment, housing, and similar purposes. Whether a data broker like Spokeo qualifies as a consumer reporting agency under the FCRA depends on whether it prepares consumer reports — information about a consumer’s creditworthiness, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living — for the purposes enumerated in the Act. The FTC has taken the position that many data brokers do qualify, and Spokeo’s profile service falls squarely within this definition.

Downstream Impact: The TransUnion Decision

The Spokeo standing analysis was refined in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), where the Supreme Court held — in a 5-4 decision — that only plaintiffs whose records were actually disseminated to third parties by the credit bureau suffered a concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing. Plaintiffs whose erroneous records existed in TransUnion’s internal files but were never shared with anyone did not. This distinction — between disseminated and undisseminated false information — has become a defining issue in FCRA class action litigation, with significant implications for class certification and the economic viability of data privacy suits.

Your Rights If a Data Broker Has Inaccurate Information About You

Despite the standing limitations recognized in Spokeo and TransUnion, individuals who can demonstrate actual dissemination of false information and resulting harm retain viable FCRA claims. The Act’s remedial scheme provides the right to dispute inaccurate information — a consumer reporting agency must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i, and failure to do so creates direct liability. For willful violations, the FCRA provides statutory damages between $100 and $1,000 per violation, plus punitive damages and attorney’s fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. Many states also have parallel credit reporting and data broker statutes that may provide additional remedies when the federal FCRA claim is complicated by standing issues.

If a data broker, background check service, or consumer reporting agency has published inaccurate information about you — particularly information affecting your employment, credit, or professional reputation — Revision Legal’s internet attorneys can evaluate your claims under the FCRA and applicable state law. Contact us through the form on this page or call 855-473-8474.

Opting Out and Removing Your Information from Data Brokers

For individuals who are concerned about the accuracy or availability of their personal information on data broker sites like Spokeo, Intelius, Whitepages, and similar platforms, there are practical steps available short of litigation. Most major data broker platforms have an opt-out process that allows individuals to request removal of their profile. The process is time-consuming — there are hundreds of data brokers, and opt-outs typically apply only to the requesting individual on the specific platform they contact — but it is available. Several states have enacted legislation to streamline this process. California’s Delete Act, signed into law in 2023, requires data brokers registered with the California Privacy Protection Agency to honor deletion requests submitted through a single centralized mechanism rather than requiring individuals to contact each data broker separately. The CCPA also provides California residents with the right to request deletion of personal information held by businesses subject to the Act. For individuals in states without comprehensive privacy laws, the practical options are narrower, but dispute rights under the FCRA apply whenever the data broker prepares consumer reports covered by the statute. Revision Legal’s attorneys can assist individuals in asserting their rights against data brokers and consumer reporting agencies, and can evaluate whether the specific facts support litigation under the FCRA or applicable state law. Contact us through the form on this page or call 855-473-8474.