[{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"https:\/\/www.fight13.com\/fcra-requires-concrete-injury-for-statutory-damages#BlogPosting","mainEntityOfPage":"https:\/\/www.fight13.com\/fcra-requires-concrete-injury-for-statutory-damages","headline":"FCRA Requires Concrete Injury For Statutory Damages","name":"FCRA Requires Concrete Injury For Statutory Damages","description":"A 2016, U.S. Supreme Court case,\u00a0Spokeo v. Robins,\u00a0in a 6-2 vote, ruled that individuals suing under the\u00a0Fair Credit Reporting Act\u00a0must demonstrate \u201cconcrete\u201d harm rather than merely allege the existence of a technical legal violation of the statute. This supports the view that simply listing the elements of a statutory claim...","datePublished":"2017-07-25","dateModified":"2026-05-01","author":{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.fight13.com\/attorneys\/matis-h-abarbanel#Person","name":"Matis Abarbanel","url":"https:\/\/www.fight13.com\/attorneys\/matis-h-abarbanel","identifier":55,"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/www.fight13.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/matis-abarbanel_avatar-96x96.png","url":"https:\/\/www.fight13.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/matis-abarbanel_avatar-96x96.png","height":96,"width":96}},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Loan Lawyers, LLC","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/www.fight13.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/icon-logo.png","url":"https:\/\/www.fight13.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/icon-logo.png","width":600,"height":60}},"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/www.fight13.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/gavel3.jpg","url":"https:\/\/www.fight13.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/gavel3.jpg","height":529,"width":800},"url":"https:\/\/www.fight13.com\/fcra-requires-concrete-injury-for-statutory-damages","about":["Fair Credit Reporting Act"],"wordCount":523,"keywords":["FCRA"],"articleBody":"A 2016, U.S. Supreme Court case,\u00a0Spokeo v. Robins,\u00a0in a 6-2 vote, ruled that individuals suing under the\u00a0Fair Credit Reporting Act\u00a0must demonstrate \u201cconcrete\u201d harm rather than merely allege the existence of a technical legal violation of the statute. This supports the view that simply listing the elements of a statutory claim fails to establish a valid claim.The\u00a0Spokeo\u00a0ruling extends beyond FCRA litigation to a long list of other statutes used by plaintiffs to obtain substantial recoveries in class actions based on alleged technical violations that did not cause any actual harm to the named plaintiffs and class members. Robins alleged that Spokeo violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by not appropriately safeguarding the truthfulness and accuracy of the information in its possession.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court\u2019s dismissal of the plaintiff\u2019s complaint about lack of standing, ruling that the defendant\u2019s alleged violations of the plaintiff\u2019s FCRA statutory rights were sufficient to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for standing under Article III. The court further concluded that it was constitutionally permissible for Congress to treat violations of these rights as \u201cconcrete,\u00a0de facto\u00a0injuries\u201d that automatically satisfy the requirement of an injury-in-fact.In\u00a0Spokeo,\u00a0Justice Alito and the majority interpreted Article III standing to require \u201ca concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation\u201d and stated that \u201c[f]or that reason, Robins could not, for example, allege a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm, and satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III.\u201dThe court placed few limits on what would constitute a concrete injury and declared that intangible and potential future harm might still qualify as such an injury. The majority wrote that having the standing to sue,\u201d requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation. \u2026 This does not mean, however, that the risk of real harm cannot satisfy the requirement of concreteness.\u201dAt\u00a0Loan Lawyers, our South Florida consumer rights and debt defense\u00a0attorneys\u00a0help individuals with financial problems that cause hardship. The experienced South Florida defense\u00a0attorneys at Loan Lawyers\u00a0are here to review your situation and determine the right solution for you.\u00a0Contact our office today\u00a0by calling 954-523-HELP (4357) and see how we can help.About the AuthorLatest PostsMatis AbarbanelMatis Abarbanel is the founding partner and senior attorney at Loan Lawyers in South Florida. He focuses his practice on consumer rights, helping homeowners navigate issues such as foreclosure and financial hardship. Matis also brings a wealth of experience from his previous work in personal injury law. As a devout Chasidic Jew, he is committed to making a positive impact in his community and dedicates his efforts to charitable initiatives through his non-profit organization, The Center, which aids at-risk Jewish youth. Matis actively serves clients across South Florida and is passionate about empowering individuals to secure their rights and achieve a better future.When Foreclosure Errors by Lenders Lead to Legal Remedies for Homeowners in Fort LauderdaleWhat Homeowners Can Do When Loan Documents Contain Forged or Altered SignaturesUnderstanding Florida\u2019s Debt Forgiveness Programs and IRS Rules"},{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"FCRA Requires Concrete Injury For Statutory Damages","item":"https:\/\/www.fight13.com\/fcra-requires-concrete-injury-for-statutory-damages#breadcrumbitem"}]}]