Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-297_4g25.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

16 

TRANSUNION LLC v. RAMIREZ 

Opinion of the Court 

relief that they seek (for example, injunctive relief and dam-
ages).  Davis, 554 U. S., at 734; Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. 
Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U. S. 167, 
185 (2000). 

A 
We  first  address  the  plaintiffs’  claim  that  TransUnion
failed to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum 
possible accuracy” of the plaintiffs’ credit files maintained 
by  TransUnion.  15  U. S. C.  §1681e(b).    In  particular,  the 
plaintiffs argue that TransUnion did not do enough to en-
sure that OFAC alerts labeling them as potential terrorists
were not included in their credit files. 

Assuming that the plaintiffs are correct that TransUnion
violated its obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
to use reasonable procedures in internally maintaining the 
credit  files,  we  must  determine  whether  the  8,185  class 
members suffered concrete harm from TransUnion’s failure 
to employ reasonable procedures.5 

1 
Start with the 1,853 class members (including the named
plaintiff  Ramirez)  whose  reports  were  disseminated  to
third-party businesses.  The plaintiffs argue that the publi-
cation to a third party of a credit report bearing a mislead-
ing OFAC alert injures the subject of the report.  The plain-
tiffs contend that this injury bears a “close relationship” to
a harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for a 
lawsuit  in  American  courts—namely,  the  reputational 
harm associated with the tort of defamation.  Spokeo, Inc. 
v. Robins, 578 U. S. 330, 341 (2016). 

—————— 

5 For purposes of this case, the parties have assumed that TransUnion
violated  the  statute  even  with  respect  to  those  plaintiffs  whose  OFAC 
alerts were never disseminated to third-party businesses.  But see Wash-
ington v. CSC Credit Servs. Inc., 199 F. 3d 263, 267 (CA5 2000).  We take 
no position on that issue.