1. This case presents an important question of Article III standing—namely, whether a plaintiff can establish a concrete injury in fact by identifying a common-law analogue to an alleged harm, regardless of whether the alleged harm differs in degree to harms actionable at common law.

2. [The second question is not presented as a separate numbered question in the Questions Presented section. The text numbered "2" and "3" in the petition are factual background, not questions presented.]

Question not identified.

Whether receipt of a single unsolicited ringless voicemail or text message constitutes a concrete injury in fact sufficient to establish Article III standing under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or whether such harm must be similar in degree, not merely in kind, to a cognizable common law injury