Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-297_4g25.pdf
Page Number: 5

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–297 
_________________ 

TRANSUNION LLC, PETITIONER v. SERGIO L. 
RAMIREZ 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[June 25, 2021] 

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH delivered the opinion of the Court. 
To have Article III standing to sue in federal court, plain-
tiffs must demonstrate, among other things, that they suf-
fered  a  concrete  harm.    No  concrete  harm,  no  standing.
Central to assessing concreteness is whether the asserted
harm has a “close relationship” to a harm traditionally rec-
ognized  as  providing  a  basis  for  a  lawsuit  in  American 
courts—such as physical harm, monetary harm, or various 
intangible harms including (as relevant here) reputational 
harm.  Spokeo,  Inc.  v.  Robins,  578  U. S.  330,  340–341 
(2016).

In this case, a class of 8,185 individuals sued TransUn-
ion,  a  credit  reporting  agency,  in  federal  court  under  the
Fair  Credit  Reporting  Act.  The  plaintiffs  claimed  that 
TransUnion failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure 
the accuracy of their credit files, as maintained internally
by TransUnion.  For 1,853 of the class members, TransUn-
ion provided misleading credit reports to third-party busi-
nesses.  We conclude that those 1,853 class members have 
demonstrated  concrete  reputational  harm  and  thus  have 
Article  III  standing  to  sue  on  the  reasonable-procedures