ipl-logo

Spokeo Vs Robbins Case Study

735 Words3 Pages

TO: David A. Douglas FROM: Anna Michelsen DATE: 11, April, 2018 SUBJECT: Ethics Assignment #2 The following document discusses the Spokeo, Inc., Petitioner v. Thomas Robins is a United States Supreme Court case that was argued on November 2, 2015 and decided May 16, 2016, its implications and how it ties in with Code, 2.0 by Lessig. 1.The background of the case is as follows: Spokeo, Inc. operates a www.spokeo.com website using which people can search and find other people. It compiles some information from white pages, public records, information found on social network websites on each individual that can then be purchased for price on Spokeo website. Thomas Robbins, the plaintiff, claimed that the information about him on …show more content…

The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) promotes the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of information in the files of consumer reporting agencies. (https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201410_cfpb_summary_your-rights-under-fcra.pdf) In January 2011, judge O. D. Wright II dismissed the initial complaint for not finding any actual harm. Robins then changed his complaint to claim the he suffered employment, stress and anxiety injuries. In May 2011, Judge Wright found Robins had claimed a valid injury-in-fact, reversed and dismissed the case. Spokeo then filed for an …show more content…

The Court first explained that the Constitution's Case requires any plaintiff to allege an injury-in-fact that is "concrete and particularized". The Ninth Circuit admitted that Robins had suffered harm, but did not affirm that the harm was concrete. The Court remanded the case. 2. Many cases depend on the final resolution found by the Court in this case. If the FCRA violations that Robins claimed will to be found concrete enough many cases with be decided in favor of individuals who have suffered damage caused by the provision of false information etc which will become the precedent and hold Spokeo and similar companies accountable. 3. Companies like Google, Facebook, and Netflix sided with the court's opinion as of 2016 when the court found that there was no proof of concrete injury or damage. All these companies and companies that are similar in nature are at high risk to be sued by many of users for online misrepresentation of individuals and invasion of their privacy that could potentially cost them large sums and even threaten their

Open Document