Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-297_4g25.pdf
Page Number: 45.0

14 

TRANSUNION LLC v. RAMIREZ 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

Were there any doubt about the facts below, we have the 
helpful benefit of a jury verdict.  The jury found that “De-
fendant  TransUnion,  LLC  willfully  fail[ed]  to  clearly  and 
accurately disclose OFAC information in the written disclo-
sures it sent to members of the class.”  Id., at 690.  And the 
jury  found  that  “Defendant  TransUnion,  LLC  willfully
fail[ed] to provide class members a summary of their FCRA 
rights with each written disclosure made to them.”  Ibid.  I 
would not be so quick as to recharacterize these jury find-
ings as mere “formatting” errors.  Ante, at 2, 25–26; see also 
U. S. Const., Amdt. 7 (“no fact tried by a jury, shall be oth-
erwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than 
according to the rules of the common law”). 

Moreover, to the extent this Court privileges concrete, fi-
nancial injury for standing purposes, recall that TransUn-
ion charged its clients extra to receive credit reports with 
the  OFAC  designation.  According  to  TransUnion,  these 
special OFAC credit reports are valuable.  Even the major-
ity  must  admit  that  withholding  something  of  value  from
another  person—that  is,  “monetary  harm”—falls  in  the 
heartland of tangible injury in fact.  Ante, at 1, 9.  Recogniz-
ing as much, TransUnion admits that its clients would have
standing to sue if they, like the class members, did not re-
ceive the OFAC credit reports they had requested.  Tr. of 
Oral Arg. 9.

And then there is the standalone harm caused by the ra-
ther  extreme  errors  in  the  credit  reports.  The  majority
(rightly) decides that having one’s identity falsely and pub-
lically associated with terrorism and drug trafficking is it-
self a concrete harm.  Ante, at 16–17.  For good reason.  This 
case is a particularly grave example of the harm this Court 
identified as central to the FCRA: “curb[ing] the dissemina-
tion of false information.”  Spokeo, 578 U. S., at 342.  And it 
aligns closely with a “harm that has traditionally been re-
garded as providing a basis for a lawsuit.”  Id., at 341.  His-
torically, “[o]ne who falsely, and without a privilege to do