Today, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in TransUnion
LLC v. Ramirez, holding that a concrete injury requires more
than the existence of a risk of harm that never materializes.
Accordingly, the vast majority of the absent class members who
could not prove that allegedly inaccurate credit reports were
disseminated to any third party did not have standing to assert a
claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
Background
This case arose from a product offered by TransUnion that
attached a “potential match” alert to the credit files
of individuals with names matching a name designated by the
Department of the Treasury's Office of Assets Control (OFAC)
as individuals restricted from certain transactions for national
security reasons (e.g., terrorists, drug traffickers,
etc.). The named plaintiff, Sergio Ramirez, alleged TransUnion
transmitted his consumer report with the OFAC alert attached to a
car dealership when Ramirez attempted to finance a car purchase.
