In recent years, two United States Supreme Court decisions have significantly reshaped consumer protection litigation: Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (2016) and TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (2021).
Both cases address one critical issue:
When does a statutory violation become a “concrete injury” sufficient to sue in federal court?
If you bring claims under the FDCPA, FCRA, or TCPA, understanding these decisions is essential.
The Constitutional Requirement: Article III Standing
Federal courts can only hear cases where the plaintiff has “standing.” Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff must show:
- An injury in fact
- That is concrete and particularized
- Caused by the defendant
- That can be redressed by the court
The fight in many consumer cases is over the word “concrete.”
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (2016)
The Background
Spokeo operated a “people search” website. Robins alleged that Spokeo published inaccurate information about him, including incorrect details about his wealth, education, and employment.
He sued under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), claiming Spokeo violated statutory accuracy requirements.
The Question Before the Court
Does a violation of a federal statute automatically create standing?
The Supreme Court’s Holding
The Court held:
- A bare procedural violation of a statute is not automatically enough.
- A plaintiff must show a concrete injury, even if intangible.
- Congress can identify harms and elevate them to legally cognizable injuries.
- However, courts must independently evaluate whether the harm is real.
In short:
Not every technical statutory violation equals standing.
The Court sent the case back for further analysis on whether the inaccuracies created real harm or a material risk of harm.
What Spokeo Changed
After Spokeo, defendants frequently began arguing:
- “This is just a technical violation.”
- “There is no real-world harm.”
- “The plaintiff lacks standing.”
Courts began dismissing some consumer cases where:
- Letters were misleading but caused no confusion
- Disclosures were incomplete but no adverse action occurred
- Errors existed but were never published to third parties
Spokeo shifted the focus from statutory violation to real-world impact.
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (2021)
If Spokeo opened the door, TransUnion tightened the standard.
The Background
A class of 8,000+ individuals sued TransUnion under the FCRA.
TransUnion had flagged them as potential matches to individuals on the U.S. Treasury Department’s OFAC terrorism watch list.
The issue:
For many class members, the misleading information was never shared with any third party.
The Supreme Court’s Key Ruling
The Court drew a sharp distinction:
- Plaintiffs whose misleading credit reports were actually sent to third parties had standing.
- Plaintiffs whose incorrect information remained only in internal files did NOT have standing.
The Court emphasized:
“No concrete harm, no standing.”
It further held:
- A “risk of future harm” alone is generally insufficient for damages.
- Concrete harm must bear a “close relationship” to harms traditionally recognized at common law (such as defamation, invasion of privacy, fraud).
The Practical Impact on Consumer Cases
Under the FCRA
After TransUnion:
- Reporting inaccurate information to a lender → strong standing.
- Internal inaccuracies never disclosed → potentially no standing.
- Emotional distress alone must be tied to a concrete injury.
Under the FDCPA
Courts now examine:
- Was the consumer actually misled?
- Did the violation create confusion or real risk of financial harm?
- Was there tangible emotional distress or time spent correcting issues?
Purely technical disclosure errors are more vulnerable to dismissal.
Under the TCPA
TCPA cases have fared better because:
- Unwanted robocalls closely resemble traditional invasion-of-privacy harms.
- Courts often find that nuisance calls themselves are concrete injuries.
Still, standing arguments continue to arise in single-call or minimal-contact cases.
Key Takeaways From Spokeo and TransUnion
1. A Statutory Violation Alone Is Not Enough
Courts will look beyond the statute to determine whether real harm occurred.
2. Disclosure Matters
In FCRA cases especially, publication to a third party is often decisive.
3. Historical Analogy Is Critical
Courts compare alleged harms to traditional common law claims such as:
- Defamation
- Invasion of privacy
- Fraud
- Intrusion upon seclusion
4. Federal Court Is Stricter Than State Court
Some state courts apply different standing standards, which can materially impact litigation strategy.
Why This Matters for Consumers
Spokeo and TransUnion do not eliminate consumer protection laws. They refine how courts evaluate harm.
Strong cases still exist when there is:
- Credit denial
- Reputational damage
- Financial loss
- Emotional distress tied to real-world consequences
- Harassing or invasive communications
The key is documenting impact.
The Bottom Line
Spokeo and TransUnion did not gut the FDCPA, FCRA, or TCPA — but they raised the bar for federal standing.
Today, the central question is not simply:
“Was the statute violated?”
It is:
“Did the violation cause a real, concrete injury that federal courts recognize?”
If you believe your rights were violated under consumer protection laws, understanding how standing works is critical before filing suit.
You can submit questions here:
👉 https://theconsumerbar.com/ask-the-bartender
Consumer protection law is evolving — and informed consumers are empowered consumers.
