injury (1) may result in actual harm that produces an adverse effect on the plaintiff, see Ben-Davies v. Blibaum & Assocs., P.A., No. 16-2188, 695 Fed.Appx. 674, 676, 2017 WL 2378920, at *2 (4th Cir. June 1, 2017) (finding that the plaintiff had alleged “actually existing intangible harms” by alleg--ing that she suffered ‘emotional distress, anger, and frustration’), (2) may carry a “risk of real harm” to a substantive right, see Spokeo, 136 S.Ct. at 1549 (explaining that an injury with a -“risk of real harm” may be sufficiently concrete in situations when harm may be “difficult to prove or measure,” such as actions for libel or slander per se), or (3) may present no real likelihood of an adverse effect, see Dreher v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 856 F.3d 337, 346 (4th Cir. 2017) (<HOLDING>). "When a plaintiff alleges an actual
holding that plaintiff had no claim under fmla because she had suffered no diminution in income and incurred no costs as a result of alleged violation holding that because a violation of a statute had no practical effect there was no concrete injury holding that there was no brady violation because the exculpatory effect of the disputed documents was merely speculative holding that a plaintiff had no injury in fact and consequently no standing when it had no enforceable contract right against the defendant holding a case becomes moot when a ruling will have no practical effect upon the existing controversy