Locke Lord’s Brian Hays, Taylor Levesque and Molly McGinnis Stine co-authored a Privacy & Cybersecurity Law Report article outlining how courts have applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s injury-in-fact ruling from Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins in a wide variety of privacy and cybersecurity litigation. In particular, they note that the flexibility of the “concrete injury” standard Spokeo created has led to “inconsistent opinions coming out of lower courts” as to whether a plaintiff has standing to sue.
“Both plaintiffs and defendants have found support for their arguments that there is, or is not, standing. This is clearly evident in privacy and cybersecurity litigation, and particularly in class actions, where plaintiffs often allege statutory violations and cite to the ‘risk’ of real harm,” they write.
They go on to examine four recent cases under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act, Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
To read the full article, click here.