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 Truescreen, 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.
The service you provide at Truescreen has been the best I have ever seen in comparison to other vendors I have worked with in the past! You guys rock!
I am very impressed with your company’s customer service, and the Truescreen portal seems to be an intuitive, user-friendly design.
Our team loves working with Truescreen and the expedient, thorough service and results we get from you.
I appreciate all your hard work ensuring that individuals are cleared through our processes. Truescreen makes my job so much easier and less stressful.