Whether a bare violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act constitutes concrete injury for purposes of Article III standing

QUESTION PRESENTED In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, this Court held that a plaintiff does not automatically satisfy Article IITs “injury-in-fact requirement whenever a_ statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate that right.” The question presented is whether a call placed in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, without any allegation or showing of injury—even that plaintiffs heard the phone ring—suffices to establish concrete injury for purposes of Article III.