By Ezra Church, Brian Ercole, Christina Vitale, Warren Rissier and Ken Kliebard, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP (May 15, 2017, 5:02 PM EDT) -- It has been one year since the U.S. Supreme Court's much-anticipated decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins.[1] The Spokeo decision analyzed the standing requirement of Article III in the context of federal statutory claims — particularly addressing whether Congress may confer standing on a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm and seeks only statutory damages. In the decision, the Supreme Court clarified that "Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation," noting that a plaintiff cannot "allege a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm, and satisfy the injury in fact requirement of Article III."[2] The decision has set off an enhanced wave of motion practice, with litigants arguing the meaning of the decision in hundreds of cases in federal courts across the country....