The U.S. Supreme Court today hears arguments in a major consumer case that traces its origins to a lawsuit a Cleveland home buyer filed against her title insurance company.

Reuters says the dispute, which pits big business against consumer groups, gets at a fundamental question: whether a person has to suffer legal harm to sue a company over an alleged kickback it got.

The Cleveland home buyer, Denise Edwards, “sued her title insurance company under a 1974 federal real estate settlement law that bars kickbacks and certain referral fee arrangements,” Reuters reports. The news service says Ms. Edwards paid First American Financial Corp $455 for title insurance as part of a home purchase in 2006 while the seller paid an additional $273. She alleges that First American “had an arrangement with her Ohio settlement agency to refer title insurance business exclusively to First American — the alleged kickback.”

Reuters notes that her attorneys argued that Congress, in adopting the 1974 law, “created a sufficient basis for her to sue and that courts have long recognized an individual’s interest to receive services free of kickbacks or other conflicts of interest.”

Backing the title company are organizations representing home builders, title insurance companies and mortgage bankers, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The story, unfortunately, doesn’t do a good job explaining their view of the case. But Kevin Walsh, a University of Richmond assistant law professor, tells Reuters that oral arguments before the court could provide clues on whether the justices are likely to rule broadly or narrowly.

“A broad ruling could either vindicate or constrict statutory damages provisions in laws designed to protect information privacy, to regulate debt collection and to set standards for credit reporting,” he says, citing other laws that could be affected.