Law360, New York (August 22, 2016, 10:49 AM EDT) -- In Spokeo Inc. v. Robins,[1] the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that plaintiffs must go beyond alleging a mere statutory violation to sue in federal court. Holding that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did not adequately weigh the concreteness of Thomas Robins' alleged injury, the court reversed and remanded for a proper standing analysis. The court emphasized that Congress cannot abrogate standing requirements and "bare procedural violation[s]"[2] will not meet the standard. Applied correctly, Spokeo should spell an end to the recent glut of data security lawsuits where many (if not most) plaintiffs cannot allege concrete harm.[3]...