The federal court decision in a putative class-action lawsuit accusing online-video provider Hulu of wrongfully disclosing subscribers' viewing data was deferred pending a U.S. Supreme Court decision in a seemingly unrelated case that has some of the nation's largest online companies on edge.

The fate of the closely watched privacy class action against Hulu largely hinges on how the justices rule in a dispute about the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA; Pub.L. 93-533), which bans certain types of kickback schemes and allows consumers to seek triple the amount they paid in inflated fees.

Among the legal issues before the high court in First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards, No. 10-708, is whether consumers have standing--under Article III, Section II of the United States Constitution--to sue in federal court when they haven't actually suffered economic injury.

The nation's technology companies have taken a keen interest in the case, and it's no wonder they have.

Noted legal scholar and legal-reforms crusader Theodore Frank, founder of the Washington-based nonprofit Center for Class Action Fairness, this morning summed up theEdwards case to FierceOnlineVideo this way: "A ruling for the respondents would keep the status quo in place, transferring substantial wealth from businesses and consumers to lawyers."

So, if the justices hold that plaintiffs must prove harm before they can sue, it would likely weaken the bevy of other lingering privacy-related, no-harm lawsuits pending against online companies..

In a jointly filed amicus brief to the justices, Yahoo Inc., LinkedIn, Facebook and Zynga argued that consumers should only have standing to sue if they've been harmed.

"Permitting a lawsuit to proceed where the plaintiff has suffered no concrete, particularized, individual injury gives plaintiffs and their attorneys license to use the class action mechanism to attempt to 'enforce' claimed widespread violations of law," the companies wrote in arguing against Edwards.