In May, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Spokeo v. Robins, providing guidance on the “injury-in-fact” aspect of the constitutional standing requirement for putative class action plaintiffs.  136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), as revised (May 24, 2016).  Spokeo was quickly hailed by both plaintiff- and defense-side lawyers as a major victory, but in truth provided something for everyone.  It requires, for example, that a plaintiff allege “a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation . . .” and not merely a “bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm.”  Id. at 1543, 1549.  Further, a “concrete” injury must “actually exist” and be “real, and not abstract.”  Id. at 1548.  On the other hand, a “concrete” injury is not “necessarily synonymous with ‘tangible.’”  Id. at 1549.  Ways to determine whether “intangible” harm qualifies as “concrete” include: (1) evaluating whether the alleged harm “has a close relationship to a harm that has traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit” and (2) looking to the judgment of Congress which “has the power to define injuries and articulate chains of causation that will give rise to a case or controversy where none existed before.”  Id.