The Supremes send one back

Adam Liptak has an article in The New York Times about false data:

A case about false information on the Internet ended with a fizzle at the Supreme Court on Monday, when the justices returned it to the appeals court for further consideration.
The case arose from an Internet profile of a California man, Thomas Robins, that was distributed by Spokeo, a company that sells personal data online to, among others, potential employers and people looking for information about prospective romantic partners.
Robins said the profile was riddled with errors. It said he had a graduate degree, though he did not; that he was employed and in good shape financially, though he was out of work; and that he was married and had children, though neither was true. The profile also included a photograph of a different man.
Robins sued under a part of the Fair Credit Reporting Act that provides damages of up to a thousand dollars without proof of quantifiable harm, and he sought to represent a class of people with similar claims. Spokeo responded that Congress did not have the power to create a legal right to sue for plaintiffs who have suffered no concrete harm.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit last year appeared to disagree. “A plaintiff can suffer a violation of the statutory right without suffering actual damages,” a unanimous three-judge panel ruled.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority in the 6-to-2 decision, said the Ninth Circuit’s analysis had been incomplete. He said the appeals court had focused on whether Robins had suffered a particularized injury, but had not adequately considered whether his injury was concrete.
Justice Alito told the Ninth Circuit to take a fresh look at that question under a fairly broad definition of what counts as “concrete”. He said the term means that an injury must actually exist and be real rather than abstract. Indeed, he wrote, “intangible injuries can nevertheless be concrete”. Even “the risk of real harm” will sometimes suffice, he wrote.
He added that Congress’ judgment about what qualifies as a concrete harm was “instructive and important,” a point that will help Robins in the Ninth Circuit.
Justice Alito gave two examples of kinds of harm that are not concrete: “a bare procedural violation” and minor errors. “Not all inaccuracies cause harm or present any material risk of harm,” he wrote. “An example that comes readily to mind is an incorrect ZIP code. It is difficult to imagine how the dissemination of an incorrect ZIP code, without more, could work any concrete harm.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented, saying there was already plenty of reason to think that Robins had suffered a concrete injury.
“Spokeo’s report made him appear over-qualified for jobs he might have gained, expectant of a higher salary than employers would be willing to pay, and less mobile because of family responsibilities,” Justice Ginsburg wrote, describing assertions in Robins’ brief. The case was not about trivial mistakes, she added. “Far from an incorrect ZIP code, Robins complains of misinformation about his education, family situation, and economic status, inaccurate representations that could affect his fortune in the job market,” she wrote. “I therefore see no utility in returning this case to the Ninth Circuit.”
The court did not address a lurking question in the case, Spokeo v. Robins, No. 13-1339, that of whether Robins was entitled to represent a class of plaintiffs claiming to have been injured by false information in their profiles.

Rico says in this over-connected era, getting shit off your record can be hard...