Or as is very likely the case, a company passes up on hiring him for something.
That's nifty and all, but that's not the actual lawsuit.
The key feature of the lawsuit is that the individual cannot show any specific harm was done, only that their legal rights were infringed. Most aspects of civil law require that the person show some sort of injury. In this case the specific law does not require damage. Damage to consumers is assumed as automatic if the company does not comply with the law. The wording of the law is only about compliance, not about harm.
The big data companies absolutely want to forbid standing in the case. If he could show specific harm he'd have a strong case but it would be a different case. This is about data aggregators being compelled to follow the law.
The first court dismissed it, claiming since he had no specific "actual or imminent harm" he couldn't sue.
The appeals court observed that the law required specific actions by the company, and the law tied failure to comply with the rules to a $100-$1000 fine for noncompliance. That's even the name of the section: "Civil liability for willful noncompliance". Again, the law specifies damages for failing to comply, not damages for actual harm. The appeals court ruled that since the law as written does not require any actual damages -- the law is about compliance by the company, with damages assigned to "any consumer" affected by non-compliance -- he can sue. He qualifies under the definition of "any customer", and the law is only about compliance, not about actual harm.
Because of the exact wording of the law, my money is on Robins on this one. The actual law does not rely on harm to the individual. The wording of the law is based entirely on compliance, with noncompliance resulting in liability. Additional harm is not mandated.
But let's turn it around. Frequently the courts will examine the consequences if the court rejects the arguments. If they turn it down, if they say consumers cannot have standing unless there is real harm, then they would effectively void sections 1681n and 1681o. There would only be civil liability for actual harm, there would not be any civil liability for noncompliance. Generally the SCOTUS relies on a Constitutional reason to void large chunks of law like that, but in this case there are several solid reasons for Congress to pass the law. If he doesn't have standing then SCOTUS is voiding the law since no other method is available for liability. The Justices tend to be careful about voiding the law, generally only voiding laws when it falls outside what the Constitution allows. I'm absolutely certain that will come up in the oral arguments: if they deny standing how else can the noncompliance law be applied? If they deny standing they seem to be voiding the law without a constitutional reason.