Summary
This published opinion from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals addresses whether a plaintiff has Article III standing to challenge property management companies' Facebook advertising practices that targeted users aged 50 and younger. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that the plaintiff failed to allege a concrete and particularized injury in fact resulting from not seeing the advertisements. The court reasoned that mere membership in a disfavored age group and speculative harm from missing out on potential housing opportunities do not satisfy standing requirements.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff has standing to sue based on alleged age‑based discrimination in Facebook advertising
- Whether the alleged discriminatory classification constitutes a concrete and particularized injury in fact
Holdings
- The plaintiff lacks standing because she failed to allege a concrete and particularized injury in fact traceable to the defendants’ conduct.
Key quotations
“We agree with the district court that Opiotennione has failed to allege facts plausibly demonstrating that she has suffered a concrete and particularized injury in fact traceable to Defendants’ challenged conduct.” (13)
Factual background
Neuhtah Opiotennione, a 55‑year‑old woman, regularly used Facebook to search for rental housing in the Washington, D.C., area. Defendants advertised apartment rentals on Facebook, targeting users 50 years old or younger. Opiotennione never saw those advertisements and alleged age discrimination.
Procedural history
The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. The plaintiff appealed de novo to the Fourth Circuit.