Abstract
The constitutional doctrine of standing serves as a gateway to the federal courthouse, filtering out claims that lack a personal, concrete stake in the outcome. In privacy litigation, the alleged injuries may feel deeply personal but are often intangible and statutory. Amidst this tension, the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III has proven particularly thorny. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins and TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez set forth a framework requiring a “concrete” injury that bears a “close relationship” to harms traditionally recognized in American law. Yet, lower courts’ interpretation of this mandate varies considerably, especially in the context of rapidly evolving digital surveillance tools like session-replay technology.
Recommended Citation
Maggie N. Munsterman,
No Thanks, Just Looking: A Post-TransUnion Analysis of Session-Replay Surveillance and Historical Privacy Harms,
91 Mo. L. Rev.
(2026)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol91/iss1/11