Supreme Court Grants TransUnion Petition for Certiorari in Class Action
Tags : FCRA Compliance
The Court will consider the first question in TransUnion LLC's September 2, 2020 petition which concerns the established standard for injury suffered by proposed class members and their representative. The class action suit alleges that the consumer credit reporting agency violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
TransUnion's petition specifically requests that the Court considers "Whether either Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages class action where the vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an injury anything like what the class representative suffered."
The class action, filed in February 2012, alleged that Sergio L. Ramirez (class representative) was unable to purchase a vehicle as a result of information TransUnion delivered to lenders. The representative's information indicated that he was a potential match for two entries in the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)'s database of criminals and terrorists. The class argued that TransUnion failed to ensure accuracy as required by the FCRA by not cross-checking OFAC name hits with other data points, such as date of birth.
In June 2017, a California federal court jury awarded $8.1 million in statutory damages and $52 million in punitive damages. The court concluded that TransUnion violated the FCRA by incorrectly associating certain consumers to similarly named criminals and terrorists in the database. The award for punitive damages was subsequently vacated by a Ninth Circuit panel and remanded to lower court with instructions to reduce the payment per class member. However, in April the court agreed to stay its decision in light of TransUnion's pursuit of an appeal to the Supreme Court.
TransUnion contends that Ramirez failed to demonstrate that a third party ever viewed allegedly negative credit reports associated with the numerous other class members. TransUnion further claims that the Ninth Circuit contradicted its own precedent. In two prior cases, the court had determined that the risk of injury only becomes material when a third party physically accesses documents.
Posted: December 22, 2020
All Rights Reserved © 2020 Certiphi Screening, Inc.
This document and/or presentation is provided as a service to our customers. Its contents are designed solely for informational purposes, and should not be inferred or understood as legal advice or binding case law, nor shared with any third parties. Persons in need of legal assistance should seek the advice of competent legal counsel. Although care has been taken in preparation of these materials, we cannot guarantee the accuracy, currency or completeness of the information contained within it. Anyone using this information does so at his or her own risk.
Everyone I have contacted at Certiphi has been a complete pleasure to work with. The Certiphi customer service rivals every other customer service I come in contact with. Everyone is always so professional, yet super nice! Thanks for all you do and keep up the amazing work and impeccable service that you provide!!!
Thank you so much! You have such an incredible reputation within our office; I think we would all say your customer service levels are continually at about 125%!
The response time has been very quick. The turnaround times are great. I love your systems and that I can go in and look at the process as its going.
It’s such a great customer service that you provide and I’m happy to tell that to anyone.
Working with Certiphi has been such a pleasure. Certiphi has taught me so much, not just about backgrounds but also the meaning of great business.
We flew through our NCQA licensure review. We very much appreciate Certiphi's help in earning a 100% score for the files!