Interested in training for your team? Click here to learn more

Privacy Class Actions Post-Spokeo: Leveraging Injury-In-Fact Requirements

Establishing or Refuting Concrete and Particularized Injury

Recording of a 90-minute CLE webinar with Q&A

This program is included with the Strafford CLE Pass. Click for more information.
This program is included with the Strafford All-Access Pass. Click for more information.

Conducted on Thursday, August 18, 2016

Recorded event now available

or call 1-800-926-7926

This CLE course will prepare class counsel to leverage the injury-in-fact requirements for Article III standing in privacy class actions in light of the recent Supreme Court opinion in Spokeo v. Robins and will outline strategies for class counsel to argue for or against whether injuries in privacy actions are concrete and particularized.


On May 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Spokeo v. Robins ruling confirmed that the injury-in-fact requirements for Article III standing for class action plaintiffs requires that the plaintiff have suffered an injury, which is both concrete and particularized. Though in privacy class actions plaintiffs can often establish a breach, showing a concrete injury resulting from the breach is much more difficult.

Counsel in privacy class actions are capitalizing on Spokeo, requesting courts to examine the injury requirements in pending cases by raising standing issues which would prevent the proposed class from being certified or result in decertification. Spokeo will also likely be used as ammunition for dismissal of claims where the only injury alleged is prospective misuse of stolen data and where plaintiffs allege only bare procedural violations.

The Court did, however, reiterate that intangible injuries can be concrete and explained that its ruling does not mean that the risk of real harm cannot satisfy the requirement of concreteness. The Court also left open the door for further disputes on standing in its acknowledgment that a violation of a procedural right granted by statute can, in some circumstances, be sufficient to constitute injury-in-fact.

Listen as our authoritative panel examines the effect of Spokeo on privacy class actions and provides in-depth analysis of the injury-in-fact requirements for Article III standing in the context of privacy injury.



  1. Injury-in-fact post-Spokeo
  2. Tangible vs. intangible injury under Spokeo
  3. Violations of statutes which provide for private causes of action after Spokeo


The panel will review these and other key issues:

  • What must a privacy class action plaintiff allege to establish Article III standing post-Spokeo?
  • Can intangible privacy injuries constitute injury-in-fact?
  • Are fears that data could be used to harm individual privacy interests sufficient to establish injury-in-fact?
  • Can procedural harms satisfy the Spokeo requirements?


David S. Almeida
David S. Almeida

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton

Mr. Almeida focuses his nationwide practice on navigating clients through class action lawsuits, complex business...  |  Read More

F. Paul Bland, Jr.
F. Paul Bland, Jr.

Executive Director
Public Justice

Mr. Bland has been responsible for developing, handling and helping attorneys litigate a diverse docket of public...  |  Read More

Access Anytime, Anywhere

Strafford will process CLE credit for one person on each recording. All formats include course handouts.

To find out which recorded format will provide the best CLE option, select your state:

CLE On-Demand Video