Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-297_4g25.pdf
Page Number: 3

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

3 

Syllabus 

fact. 

The credit files of the remaining 6,332 class members also contained 
misleading OFAC alerts, but the parties stipulated that TransUnion 
did  not  provide  those  plaintiffs’  credit  information  to  any  potential
creditors  during  the  designated  class  period.    The  mere  existence  of 
inaccurate  information,  absent  dissemination,  traditionally  has  not 
provided the basis for a lawsuit in American courts.  The plaintiffs can-
not demonstrate that the misleading information in the internal credit
files itself constitutes a concrete harm. 

The plaintiffs advance a separate argument based on their exposure
to the risk that the misleading information would be disseminated in 
the  future  to  third  parties.    The  Court  has  recognized  that  material 
risk of future harm can satisfy the concrete-harm requirement in the 
context of a claim for injunctive relief to prevent the harm from occur-
ring, at least so long as the risk of harm is sufficiently imminent and 
substantial.  See Spokeo, 578 U. S., at 341–342 (citing Clapper v. Am-
nesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398).  But TransUnion advances a persua-
sive argument that the mere risk of future harm, without more, cannot
qualify as a concrete harm in a suit for damages.  The 6,332 plaintiffs
did  not  demonstrate  that  the  risk  of  future  harm  materialized.    Nor 
did those plaintiffs present evidence that the class members were in-
dependently harmed by their exposure to the risk itself.  The risk of 
future harm cannot supply the basis for their standing.  Pp. 16–24. 

(2) In two other claims, all 8,185 class members complained about
formatting  defects  in  certain  mailings  sent  to  them  by  TransUnion. 
But the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the format of TransUn-
ion’s mailings caused them a harm with a close relationship to a harm 
traditionally recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American 
courts.  See Spokeo, 578 U. S., at 341. 

The plaintiffs argue that TransUnion’s formatting violations created
a risk of future harm, because consumers who received the information 
in the dual-mailing format were at risk of not learning about the OFAC 
alert in their credit files and thus not asking for corrections.  The risk 
of future harm on its own is not enough to support Article III standing
for  their  damages  claim.    In  any  event,  the  plaintiffs  here  made  no 
effort to explain how the formatting error prevented them asking for 
corrections to prevent future harm.  

The United States as amicus curiae asserts that the plaintiffs suf-
fered a concrete “informational injury” from TransUnion’s formatting 
violations.  See Federal Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U. S. 11; Public 
Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U. S. 440.  But the plaintiffs here 
did  not  allege  that  they  failed  to  receive  any  required  information. 
They argued only that they received the information in the wrong for-