Assessing 'Concreteness' Under Spokeo In Northern Illinois

Law360 (August 27, 2018, 12:13 PM EDT) -- The U.S. Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins[1] compelled the Northern District of Illinois, like all federal courts, to update the way it determines whether plaintiffs have Article III standing to bring statutory violation claims.

Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts' jurisdiction to "cases and controversies."[2] Accordingly, plaintiffs who fail to show that their suits represent actual "cases and controversies" lack Article III standing to bring their claims.[3] So, to establish standing, plaintiffs must show three things:

The plaintiff suffered an "injury-in-fact;"

The injury is "fairly traceable" to the defendant's alleged misconduct; and

The injury is...

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.


  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Ask a question!