Appellate and trial courts are issuing inconsistent decisions concerning proper standing and jurisdiction following the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. The uncertainty created by these decisions means judges and attorneys must juggle many variables when considering choice of venue in Illinois and other states. The difference is in how each court defines concrete injury and whether the threat of future harm is sufficiently concrete. An illustration of these inconsistencies is in cases brought by consumers affected by data breaches. In those cases, consumers’ personal information became exposed to parties not authorized to see or possess it. Claims based on data breaches typically include, if not solely rely on, allegations that consumers were injured because the mere exposure of their personal information created a threat of future harm. Read Mark Bernstein’s article, “Standing Here or There?,” in October’s Illinois Bar Journal for a detailed analysis of venue and jurisdiction implications when trying or defending cases involving concrete-injury and future-harm claims.