TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), separates a statutory violation from the concrete injury required for federal jurisdiction. Recent Ninth Circuit decisions show that the requirement matters at every stage—from the complaint and removal through summary judgment and recovery by individual class members.
A legal violation is not enough
A plaintiff invoking federal jurisdiction must identify an actual or imminent injury that is concrete, particularized, traceable to the defendant, and redressable by the requested relief. For an intangible injury, TransUnion asks whether the alleged harm has a close relationship to a harm traditionally recognized as actionable. Congress or a state legislature may identify and elevate real harms, but it cannot create Article III injury merely by authorizing statutory damages.
The analysis must match the plaintiff’s specific experience to a specific historical analogue. Labels such as “privacy injury,” “informational injury,” or “risk of harm” do not substitute for that comparison.
Popa requires a concrete, fact-specific privacy harm
In Popa v. Microsoft Corp., 153 F.4th 784 (9th Cir. 2025), a website visitor challenged session-replay technology under a state wiretap statute and common-law privacy principles. The Ninth Circuit held that the complaint did not allege a concrete injury. The plaintiff had not explained how the captured shopping interactions and partially masked address information resembled the highly offensive intrusion or publicity required by the asserted common-law privacy torts.
The decision rejects a free-floating rule that violation of a statute protecting “privacy” necessarily creates federal standing. The complaint must identify what information was obtained, how the collection or disclosure affected the plaintiff, and why that harm closely resembles a historically actionable injury.
State-law claims do not avoid Article III
An unpublished decision, Kisil v. Illuminate Education, Inc., No. 23-4114, 2025 WL 2518445 (9th Cir. Sept. 8, 2025), applied the same concrete-injury requirement to state statutory and common-law claims arising from a data incident. The source of the cause of action does not change the constitutional limit on a federal court’s power.
That point is important in diversity and removed cases. A state court may have authority to adjudicate a claim even when Article III would bar the same claim in federal court. A defendant considering removal should therefore assess standing before removing. If the federal court lacks Article III jurisdiction over a removed action, the ordinary result is remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), not a merits dismissal that extinguishes a potentially viable state-court claim.
Read Kisil v. Illuminate Education, Inc.
Healy moves class-wide proof to summary judgment
Healy v. Milliman, Inc., 164 F.4th 701 (9th Cir. 2026), addresses when unnamed members of a certified damages class must prove standing. The Ninth Circuit held that, after certification, both named and unnamed class members must present evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact on standing at summary judgment.
The court rejected two extremes. Allegations alone are no longer enough at summary judgment, but plaintiffs need not conclusively prove every class member’s injury at that stage. Direct or circumstantial evidence may suffice if a reasonable jury could infer concrete injury for the class members who seek damages.
Practical implications
Plaintiffs should plead the real-world consequence of the alleged violation and preserve evidence linking that consequence to each form of relief. Defendants should test standing early, but also revisit it as the evidentiary burden increases. In putative class cases, certification does not cure an injury problem; the question becomes class-wide at summary judgment and ultimately individual for anyone who will receive damages.
Removal strategy also requires care. A defendant may prefer a federal forum but cannot manufacture Article III jurisdiction, and a successful standing challenge may return the case to state court rather than end it.
This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Jurisdiction depends on the pleaded claims, requested relief, procedural posture, evidence, and governing circuit authority.