Following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Spokeo, practitioners are keeping a close eye on how courts will analyze the “concrete” injury requirement for Article III standing.
One recent opinion comes from Judge James L. Robart of the Western District of Washington, who held that a plaintiff in the TCPA case before him contained sufficient allegations of a concrete injury:
Here, the court is satisfied that Plaintiffs’ allegations demonstrate “concrete injury” as elucidated in Spokeo. In Spokeo, the “injury” Plaintiffs incurred was arguably merely procedural and thus non-concrete. In contrast, the TCPA and WADAD violations alleged here, if proven, required Plaintiffs to waste time answering or otherwise addressing widespread robocalls. … As Congress and Washington State’s legislature agreed, such an injury is sufficiently concrete to confer standing.
Booth v. Appstack, Inc., 2016 WL 3030256 (W.D. Wash. May 25, 2016).