Law Center Search Results

The NAM filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision that erroneously conflated injury-in-law with injury-in-fact for purposes of Article III standing in an alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In this case, Robins alleged that Spokeo violated the FCRA when it published inaccurate information on its website about Robins’ education and income. This decision might invite abusive class action litigation in which plaintiffs’ attorneys could amass huge classes of plaintiffs, most or none of whom would have actually suffered any negative consequences as a result of the alleged FCRA violation. The NAM’s brief argued that statutory injury-in-law is not a substitute for Article III injury-in-fact because Congress does not have the ability to abrogate the constitutional standing requirements. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit, which then found that Robins had alleged a sufficient concrete harm to establish an injury-in-fact.