In a case that is on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, an appellate panel has ruled that a plaintiff in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case has alleged a concrete injury from an inaccurate consumer report and can proceed with his case.

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins that plaintiffs must show evidence of “concrete” injury to successfully file suit in its 6-2 ruling issued in June 2016. 

The plaintiff in the case was Thomas Robins, who claimed inaccurate information provided by Pasadena, California-based Spokeo harmed his employment prospects.

In a 2014 ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed a lower court ruling and held that Mr. Robins had adequately alleged an “injury-in-fact,” which was a requirement for him to sue under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court vacated the 9th Circuit ruling, but did not issue a final ruling in the case. It said the 9th Circuit ruling’s analysis was incomplete in failing to address whether the alleged injury was sufficiently concrete.

In its ruling Tuesday, a three-judge appeals court panel unanimously agreed it was. The FCRA procedures “at issue in this case were crafted to protect consumers (like Robbins’s) concrete interest in accurate credit reporting about themselves,” said the appellate panel ruling.

Mr. Robins is incorrect in arguing that any FCRA violation premised on some inaccurate disclosure of information is sufficient, said the ruling, pointing to the U.S. Supreme Court’s example of an incorrect ZIP code.

But, the opinion adds, “it is clear to us that Robins’ allegations related facts that are substantially more likely to harm his concrete interests than the Supreme Court’s example of an incorrect zip code.”

“Robins specifically alleged that Spokeo falsely reported that he is married with children, that he is in his 50s, that he is employed in a professional or technical field, that he has a graduate degree, and that his wealth level is higher than it is,” said the ruling.

“It does not take much imagination to understand how inaccurate reports on such a broad range of material facts about Robins’s life could be deemed a real harm,” said the ruling, in holding Mr. Robins has alleged injuries that are sufficiently concrete, and remanding the case for further proceedings.

The Spokeo case has been cited as a possible indication of how the U.S. Supreme Court may eventually rule on the issue of whether data breach victims can sue if there has been only potential, but no actual, harm created from the theft of their personal information.