Spokeo v. Robins - Brief of Restitution and Remedies Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent

48 Pages Posted: 15 Sep 2015 Last revised: 30 Sep 2015

See all articles by Douglas Laycock

Douglas Laycock

University of Virginia School of Law

Mark P. Gergen

University of California, Berkeley - School of Law

Doug Rendleman

Washington and Lee University - School of Law

Date Written: September 11, 2015

Abstract

Both consumer protection and restitution may be casualties in a collision with the constitutional law of standing.

Spokeo collects information from the internet and publishes it; however, Spokeo neither verifies the facts nor confirms which same-named person it refers to. Robins alleges that Spokeo violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by disseminating false information about him. He seeks class certification and up to $1,000 in statutory minimum damages instead of compensatory damages. Spokeo argues that Robins lacks standing because he suffered no “injury in fact,” no “concrete harm.”

Statutory minimum recoveries for defendants’ violations of plaintiffs’ individual rights without proof of pecuniary damages or actual harm were well known before the American founding. Indeed the First Congress enacted at least one statutory minimum recovery. Congress continues to need the ability to legislate statutory minimum damages as remedies to protect consumers and other plaintiffs. This brief argues that the Court should not erode Congress’s efforts by denying standing to those plaintiffs.

The search for harm beyond defendants’ violations of plaintiffs’ legally protected interests arose where defendants’ alleged public-law violations were not individualized, more generally where the laws at issue did not actually apply to plaintiffs. If, on the other hand, a defendant actually invades a plaintiff’s individualized statutory private-law “legally protected interest,” then that violation satisfies the standing prerequisite of “injury in fact.” The Court has never required a plaintiff to adduce an additional or consequential harm beyond a violation.

This brief also warns the Court that accepting Spokeo’s standing argument will inadvertently lock the federal courthouse door to much of the law of restitution. Restitution is based on defendant’s gain, not plaintiff’s loss. Many restitution defendants made improper profits by violating plaintiffs’ legal rights without causing plaintiffs any pecuniary loss or harm. The brief reviews numerous long-standing restitution claims that do not involve any “injury in fact” under Spokeo’s apparent definition. These claims to recover a wrongdoer’s improper profits or to set aside a transaction tainted by a wrongdoer’s conflict of interest are crucial parts of our restitution jurisprudence. This brief calls on the Court to stand up for restitution.

Keywords: restitution, unjust enrichment, constitutional law, standing, federal courts, damages, remedies, Fair Credit Reporting Act, consumer protection, contracts

JEL Classification: K10, K40, K41

Suggested Citation

Laycock, Douglas and Gergen, Mark P. and Rendleman, Doug, Spokeo v. Robins - Brief of Restitution and Remedies Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent (September 11, 2015). Washington & Lee Legal Studies Paper No. 2015; Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 52; UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 2660394. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2660394 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2660394

Douglas Laycock

University of Virginia School of Law ( email )

580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
United States

Mark P. Gergen

University of California, Berkeley - School of Law ( email )

215 Boalt Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-7200
United States

Doug Rendleman (Contact Author)

Washington and Lee University - School of Law ( email )

Lexington, VA 24450
United States

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
136
Abstract Views
953
rank
219,834
PlumX Metrics