Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-297_4g25.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

2 

TRANSUNION LLC v. RAMIREZ 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

to flag was rather rudimentary.  It compared only the con-
sumer’s first and last name with the names on the OFAC 
list.  If the names were identical or similar, TransUnion in-
cluded  in  the  consumer’s  report  an  “OFAC  ADVISOR
ALERT,” explaining that the consumer’s name matches a
name  on  the  OFAC  database.    See,  e.g.,  951  F. 3d  1008, 
1017,  1019  (CA9  2020)  (“ ‘Cortez’  would  match  with  ‘Cor-
tes’ ”).  TransUnion did not compare birth dates, middle in-
itials, Social Security numbers, or any other available iden-
tifier routinely used to collect and verify credit-report data. 
Id., at 1019, n. 2. 

In  2005,  a  consumer  sued.  TransUnion  had  sold  an 
OFAC credit report about this consumer to a car dealership. 
The report flagged her—Sandra Jean Cortez, born in May
1944—as  a  match  for  a  person  on  the  OFAC  list:  Sandra 
Cortes Quintero, born in June 1971.  TransUnion withheld 
this OFAC alert from the credit report that Cortez had re-
quested.  And despite Cortez’s efforts to have the alert re-
moved, TransUnion kept the alert in place for years. 

After a trial, the jury returned a verdict in the consumer’s
favor  on  four  FCRA  claims,  two  of  which  are  similar  to 
claims  at  issue  here:  (1)  TransUnion  failed  to  follow  rea-
sonable  procedures  that  would  ensure  maximum  possible
accuracy, 15 U. S. C. §1681e(b); and (2)  TransUnion failed 
to provide Cortez all information in her file despite her re-
quests,  §1681g(a).    See  Cortez  v.  Trans  Union,  LLC,  617 
F. 3d 688, 696–706 (CA3 2010).  The jury awarded $50,000 
in actual damages and $750,000 in punitive damages, and 
it also took the unusual step of including on the verdict form 
a  handwritten  note  urging  TransUnion  to  “completely  re-
vam[p]” its business practices.  App. to Brief for Respondent
2a.  The  District  Court  reduced  the  punitive  damages 
award to $100,000, which the Third Circuit affirmed on ap-
peal,  stressing  that  TransUnion’s  failure  to,  “at  the  very
least, compar[e] birth dates when they are available,” was
“reprehensible.”  617 F. 3d, at 723.