"Spokeo Aftermath: A Look at the 11th Circ. Approach," Law360
In an article published on August 11, 2016, Matthew Robert Rosenkoff provides insight on the controversy sparked during the Supreme Court’s ruling in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins. In Spokeo, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, and held in the context of a Fair Credit Reporting Act claim that the injury-in-fact requirement for standing required a concrete and particularized injury. This decision provided ample ammunition for both sides of the debate about the breadth of its application. Mr. Rosenkoff suggests that many questions remain in regard to the application of the ruling and that litigants will have to wait and see how the Supreme Court treats Spokeo with respect to other cases involving statutorily created rights. For the full article, subscribers may visit the Law360 website.