decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.”15 A core requirement of standing is that the plaintiff have suffered an injury in fact. The defendants contend that the plaintiffs fail to demonstrate injury in fact because they make insufficient allegations of pecuniary harm. For purposes of injury in fact, the defendants’ emphasis on economic loss is misplaced. In assessing injury in fact, we look for an “invasion . . . which is (a) concrete and particularized; and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”16 Though the “injury must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way,”17 this standard does not demand that a plaintiff suffer any particular type of harm to have standing. Consequently, and contrary to the contentions of the defendants, a plaintiff need not show actual monetary loss for purposes of injury in fact. Rather, “the actual or threatened injury required by Art. III may exist solely by virtue of statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing.”18 Sure enough, the Supreme Court itself 15 Storino v. Borough of Point Pleasant Beach, 322 F.3d 293, 296 (3d Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). “If [the] plaintiffs do not possess Article III standing, both the District Court and this Court lack subject matter jurisdiction to address the merits of [the] plaintiffs’ case.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 16 Pichler v. UNITE, 542 F.3d 380, 390 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). 17 Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 n.1. 14