Richard Wolf

USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court sided narrowly with business over consumers Monday, ruling that false information disseminated on the Internet does not necessarily lead to a successful class action lawsuit.

The 6-2 ruling was intended to avoid an onslaught of frivolous lawsuits targeting innocent biographical errors, which business groups warned could happen if the justices opened the courthouse doors to such lawsuits.

The justices did not slam the door shut in the case of Thomas Robins, who sued an Internet-based "people search platform" over its inaccurate description of him. The company, Spokeo, listed Robins as in his 50s, married with children, gainfully employed, having a graduate degree, with "very strong" economic health and personal wealth in the top 10%. In truth, Robins was none of those things.

Still, "not all inaccuracies cause harm or present any material risk of harm," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court majority, which included liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. "An example that comes readily to mind is an incorrect zip code. It is difficult to imagine how the dissemination of an incorrect zip code, without more, could work any concrete harm."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. "Far from an incorrect zip code, Robins complains of misinformation about his education, family situation, and economic status, inaccurate representations that could affect his fortune in the job market," Ginsburg wrote.

The case was one of three on the high court's fall docket in which companies sought relief from the threat of potentially expensive class action lawsuits after losing in federal appeals courts. The court previously ruled that some class action lawsuits filed by consumers or workers can be based on statistical averages rather than actual data, and that companies cannot extinguish class action lawsuits simply by offering to compensate the lead plaintiff.

Supreme Court says class action lawsuits can survive compensation offers

The case against Spokeo was brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a 1970 law passed by Congress to protect consumer confidentiality and ensure that information is accurate and used properly.

The question before the justices was whether Robins and, by extension, others in similar situations can sue for damages because of a violation of a statute, or whether they need to prove a "concrete and particularized" injury. In the end, the court struck down Robins' victory at a federal appeals court and ordered it to reconsider the case.

"The Supreme Court has squarely rejected the contention that merely alleging a violation of a statute alone gives a plaintiff standing to bring a claim under federal law on behalf of a class of hundreds of thousands or millions of people," Spokeo said in a statement. "The court’s standard will make it much harder to turn individual cases like this one into million-member class actions."

Jay Edelson, one of Robins' lawyers, held out hope for victory because all eight justices reaffirmed that "companies that violate federal statutes will be held accountable in a court of law."

During oral argument in November, several justices said false information spread over the Internet can constitute a concrete injury.

"I know plenty of single people who look at whether someone who's proposed to date is married or not," Sotomayor said. "So if you're not married and there's a report out there saying you are, that's a potential injury."

But the court's conservatives said laws do not create individual injuries. "Our cases have always said 'actual injury in fact,'" Chief Justice John Roberts said. "And I thought that meant that was different than actual injury in law."

Who can sue for injury? Issue divides Supreme Court along ideological lines