Supreme Court: TransUnion LLC v Ramirez

TransUnion LLC v Ramirez, (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with standing under Article III of the Constitution related to class-action suits against private defendants. In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that only those that can show concrete harm have standing to seek damages against private defendants.

Background.

Sergio Ramirez had been in the process of purchasing a new car in 2011, and as typically done, had his credit rating reviewed by the dealership. Using of the credit rating agencies, TransUnion, his name was checked not only against financial databases but alongside a list maintained by the federal Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of known terrorists and other known criminals that would be illegal to conduct business with. As his name matched one of those on the OFAC's list - but otherwise had no relation to the known criminal - the dealership told him this direct in front of family members and denied selling him the car. Ramirez queried TransUnion for copies of his credit report in the following days, which still indicated that Ramirez was considered a potential criminal. Eventually, TransUnion distinguished Ramirez's credit record as unconnected to the OFAC list.

Ramirez filed suit against TransUnion in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in 2012, asserting that TransUnion's means of using simple name matching to the OFAC list, they were violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which was created to allow victims of false credit reporting to seek remedies. Ramirez sought and obtained class-action status for his suit, with over 8,000 other individuals that similarly had been matched against the OFAC list due to sharing of the same name and who had been notified by TransUnion. A jury trial awarded the class damages of $60 million in 2016, though on appeal to the Ninth Circuit in 2020, the damages were reduced to $40 million. During both the jury trial and at appeal, TransUnion objected to the validity of the class-action suit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, claiming that the class members had not shown demonstrable harm and thus lacked Article III standing to bring suit. However, the courts rejected TransUnion's argument.