Ford removed this action to federal court under CAFA, then successfully moved to dismiss it under Rule 12(b)(6) because the plaintiff did not allege he had suffered an injury to his business, his person, or his reputation as required by the Washington privacy statute under which he sued. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the lack of injury showed he did not have Article III standing, so the case should have been remanded to state court. This decision rejects that argument pointing out that Article III standing and statutory standing may be, and in this case were, different standards. Violation of a statute that codifies a common law privacy right “gives rise to a concrete injury sufficient to confer standing.” In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig. (9th Cir. 2020) 956 F.3d 589, 598. Plaintiff alleged a violation of Washington’s privacy statute, establishing Art. III standing. However, to recover damages under the Washington statute, plaintiff also had to, but did not, allege injury to his business, his person, or his reputation, so his action was properly dismissed