Shiyang Huang v. Brian F. Spector, et al.

The court of appeals below held that “a vast number” of Plaintiffs can obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in monetary damages, by solely alleging a “risk of future harm” for Article III standing, with no need to provide evidence beyond the pleadings. Three weeks later, this Court held that “in a suit for damages, the mere risk of future harm, standing alone, cannot qualify as a concrete harm.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2210-11 (2021). This Court em­ phasized that its precedents “did not hold that the mere risk of future harm, without more, suffices to demon­ strate Article III standing in a suit for damages.” Ibid. The question presented is: Whether class-action plaintiffs can still rely on mere “risk of future harm” allegations alone to establish Arti­ cle III standing, achieve class certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23, and obtain hundreds of mil­ lions of dollars in money damages, in light of this Court’s recent decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021). (I)