Also known as: risks of real harm · real risk of harm · real and immediate risk of harm
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A material threat of actual or imminent harm that can establish the concreteness element of injury in fact for Article III standing when a plaintiff alleges a statutory violation. The threat must be particularized to the plaintiff and tied to a real-world consequence rather than a purely procedural breach. A bare statutory violation without any such threat fails to satisfy Article III.
Roberto Reyes discovers that a data aggregator listed his employment history incorrectly in violation of a federal accuracy statute. He has never applied for a job through the service and alleges no lost opportunities or reputational damage. The court dismisses the suit because the bare violation creates no material risk of real harm to Roberto.
Rita Russell receives a digital receipt from Royal Crest Hotels that omits required truncation details under a federal statute. She suffers no unauthorized charges and presents no evidence that her card information was intercepted. The court finds no standing because the technical omission poses no concrete risk of real harm to Rita.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
No. Article III requires a concrete injury in fact. A statutory violation satisfies concreteness only if it creates a material risk of real harm to the plaintiff. A purely procedural breach divorced from any actual or threatened injury is insufficient.
Supporting sources
The risk must be material and particularized to the plaintiff rather than speculative or generalized. Courts examine whether the statutory violation exposes the plaintiff to a realistic threat of tangible or intangible harm that the statute was designed to prevent.
Supporting sources
No. Emotional distress from a procedural violation does not create standing unless it is tied to a material risk of concrete harm. Generalized anxiety without evidence of actual or imminent injury remains insufficient under Article III.
Supporting sources
…III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation. This does not mean, however, that the risk of real harm cannot satisfy that requirement. See, e.g., Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA , 568 U. S. . The violation of a procedural right granted by statute can be sufficient in some circumstances to…