This appeal arises from a decision by the district court dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of standing under Article III. The plaintiffs are two individuals who reserved grave plots and purchased pre-need burial services at cemeteries run by the defendants. They filed their original complaint in state court as a class action. The complaint alleged that the defendants routinely defiled the graves in their cemeteries through various unsavory practices, such as making room for more bodies by moving or damaging the outer burial containers of individuals who were already buried. It further alleged that the defendants covered up those defilements so that customers would not learn about them. Based on those allegations, the original complaint sought damages on behalf of all the individuals who had loved ones buried at those cemeteries, as well as all the individuals who had reserved grave plots or purchased pre-need burial services at those cemeteries.

After the defendants removed the case to federal court using a provision of the Class Action Fairness Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A), the plaintiffs amended their complaint to remove the request for class action certification. But when the plaintiffs amended their complaint, they failed to include any factual allegations establishing that the grave plots they reserved had actually been affected by the alleged acts of the defendants.

As a result, their amended complaint does not allege the injury-in-fact necessary to establish standing under Article III. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2136, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Similarly, their failure to allege any personal detriment means that their Florida statutory claims assert mere “abstract statutory violation[s],” which Article III prevents us from deciding. See Charvat v. Mut. First Fed. Credit Union, 725 F.3d 819, 824 (8th Cir. 2013). We therefore affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice. We note that our conclusion is consistent with an earlier decision by another panel of this Court holding that a nearly identical complaint failed *843 to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement. See Schwartz v. SCI Funeral Servs. of Fla., 554 Fed.Appx. 823 (11th Cir. 2014).

AFFIRMED.