What was the decision in Spokeo v. Robins regarding standing to sue?

In Spokeo v. Robins, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a plaintiff has standing to sue under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when the plaintiff alleges a violation but cannot demonstrate that he suffered any concrete harm. The Court ruled that for a plaintiff to have standing, there must be a concrete injury that is either actual or imminent, rather than merely a procedural violation of a statute.

In this case, Robins claimed that Spokeo had incorrectly reported information about him, but he did not provide evidence of any actual harm resulting from this incorrect information. The ruling highlighted that merely alleging a violation of the FCRA is insufficient for standing; the plaintiff must also demonstrate that this violation resulted in a tangible injury. Thus, the Court ultimately decided that there was no standing to sue because Robins did not show he had suffered any actual harm from Spokeo's actions.