Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-297_4g25.pdf
Page Number: 34.0

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

3 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

But  TransUnion  “made  surprisingly  few  changes”  after 
this verdict.  951 F. 3d, at 1021.  It did not begin comparing
birth  dates.  Or  middle  initials.  Or  citizenship.    In  fact, 
TransUnion did not compare any new piece of information.
Instead,  it  hedged  its  language  saying  a  consumer  was  a 
“ ‘potential  match’ ”  rather  than  saying  the  person  was  a
“ ‘match.’ ”  Ibid.  And instead of listing matches for similar 
names, TransUnion required that the first and last names
match exactly.  Unsurprisingly, these reports kept flagging
law-abiding  Americans  as  potential  terrorists  and  drug
traffickers.  And equally unsurprising, someone else sued.
That brings us to this case.  Sergio Ramirez visited a car
dealership, offered to buy a car, and negotiated the terms.
The dealership then ran a joint credit check on Ramirez and 
his wife.  The salesperson said that the check revealed that 
Ramirez  was  on  “ ‘a  terrorist  list,’ ”  so  the  salesperson  re-
fused to close the deal with him.  Id., at 1017. 

Ramirez requested and received a copy of his credit report
from  TransUnion.    The  report  purported  to  be  “complete 
and  reliable,”  but  it  made  no  mention  of  the  OFAC  alert. 
See App. 88–91.  TransUnion later sent a separate “ ‘cour-
tesy’ ” letter, which informed Ramirez that his “TransUnion 
credit report” had “been mailed to [him] separately.”  Id., at 
92.  That letter informed Ramirez that he was a potential
match to someone in the OFAC database, but it never re-
vealed  that  any  OFAC  information  was  present  on  his 
credit report.  See id., at 92–94.  TransUnion opted not to
include with this letter a description of Ramirez’s rights un-
der  the  FCRA  or  any  information  on  how  to  dispute  the
OFAC  match.  951  F. 3d,  at  1018.    The  letter  merely  di-
rected Ramirez to visit the Department of Treasury’s web-
site or to call or write TransUnion if Ramirez had any addi-
tional questions or concerns. 

Ramirez  sued,  asserting  three  claims  under  the  FCRA:
TransUnion willfully failed to follow reasonable procedures
to  assure  maximum  possible  accuracy  of  the  information