← All Authorities
United States Leading Case amenability and standing

Spokeo Inc v Robins

578 U.S. 330 (2016)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtUS Supreme Court
Year2016
StatusBinding authority

Summary

A plaintiff must allege a concrete, particularised injury-in-fact even when suing for statutory violations; a bare procedural violation without real-world harm is insufficient for Article III standing.

Key Principle

concrete injury required even for statutory violations; bare procedural violation insufficient

Area of Law

Standing and Justiciability

Related Cases

Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife 504 U.S. 555 (1992)

Article III standing requires a plaintiff to demonstrate injury in fact, causation, and redressability to invoke federal court jurisdiction.

Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos 605 U. S. 280 (2025)
Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo 603 U.S. ___ (2024)

Chevron U.S.A. v NRDC overruled; courts must independently interpret statutes and may not defer to agency interpretations solely because of statutory ambiguity.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Spokeo Inc v Robins and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Spokeo Inc v Robins