The U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-awaited decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, which was expected to resolve whether plaintiffs can establish Article III standing based solely on the alleged violation of a statutory right even in the absence of any actual injury. While Spokeo involved alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the decision was eagerly awaited because of its potential effect on class actions under numerous other laws creating private rights of actions, including privacy laws such as the Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, the Video Privacy Protection Act, the Cable Communications Privacy Act, and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. But the court decided, 6-2, simply to remand the case to the Ninth Circuit for consideration of whether the plaintiff had alleged a concrete harm, without resolving whether or when violation of a statutory right itself can constitute concrete harm. In doing so, the court appeared to ignore the core of what the Ninth Circuit had actually decided as well as the plaintiff’s actual allegations. It seems clear that the court’s “non-decision” was an effort to avoid a 4-4 deadlock on a controversial issue ‒ one that would have resulted in the affirmance of the Ninth Circuit’s expansive view of standing.