but spokeo says we did u.s. favor that you might be an actor you were not the favorite it did not reveal private facts and therefore more important you are not required to demonstrate to cause any additional harm. so we are liable for each instance that we do that. to add up to a lot of money in the complaint is that only that we had violated what the congress conferred och but what the supreme court is injury in fact,. but to experience that article at the outset the court said even if you have not suffered an injury to show that how it is not a floor but it keeps you out if you cannot show injury. without ever quite figuring out what that means but it doesn't mean the of violation but this suggestion is something lower elemental of physical harm but it also includes at least to be discriminated against but the claim that there is no injury in fact, but false information the chief justice during the oral argument said that the statutory rights said it is injury as law to establish on your behalf and to distingu

so in some sense spokeo is saying, hey, we did you a favor. it might be inaccurate, but you were defamed by it, it didn't reveal any private facts you didn't want anybody to know. and more importantly, you're not required by this law to demonstrate that this inaccurate publication caused you any additional harm. the statute provides that if we didn't follow reasonable steps, we are liable for each instance in which we do that. and he's seeking class certification. so that could add up to a lot of money. and the complaint is in order to get into federal court, you ought to be required to show that not only we violate this had statutory right but that it caused you what the supreme court has described as injury in in-fact. what does that mean? the phrase was developed, i think, in a 1970 case by the court to expand the concept of article 3. at the outset, the court said, even if you haven't suffered an injury by virtue of a legal right that has been violated, if you can show that you were actually injured by someone 's conduct, that gives you st

she gave someone else false information, spoke you put it online, i can't trust her. -- spokeo. even in these cases, it might result in harm to you for congress great a prophylactic rule. basically don't publish anything without ensuring its accuracy to get at those cases that will cost some other form of harm. >> i was going to point out one general point which is from marty's presentation which i don't agree with everything he said, but it's hard to understand why anyone may want to say that you need to have an injury in fact. it helps to understand a little bit by the court cares about stan and injury in fact if you come out of an attraction which are a couple of cases where the court said congress can't just anyone in the country can sue over ethical violation. the reason they have said that is it's predominately concerned about separation of powers. they don't want courts opining of legal disputes in the abstract. they want a plaintiff who cares about the violation and not just cares to answer for ideological reasons but just in a real-world concrete sense that it affects t

only when they disseminate the information about the reports and this involves against its tokyo -- spokeo. the allocation disinformation the publish they not only violated the statutory rule but have to take reasonable steps to insure accuracy but their violation caused them to publish an accurate information about the plaintiff. that information involved his age and wealth and employment and education and marital status of those it was inaccurate but that good the to his benefit. allegedly she was more eloquent dash educated and gender than he actually is. so the klay ms. we did you a favor with your own allegations. you did not remind jeffrey student but that could add up to a lot of money. the complaint is in order to get into federal court you ought to be required to show not only we violated the statutory right to that congress conferred upon new but cost with the supreme court has described as injury in fact,. that was developed in the 1970 case to expand the concept at the time. at the half set the coverage said but the majority has it is in something that gets you into court but w