Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-297_4g25.pdf
Page Number: 9

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

mailing did not mention the OFAC alert in Ramirez’s file.
The  following  day,  TransUnion  sent  Ramirez  a  second 
mailing—a  letter  alerting  him  that  his  name  was  consid-
ered a potential match to names on the OFAC list.  The sec-
ond mailing did not include an additional copy of the sum-
mary  of  rights.    Concerned  about  the  mailings,  Ramirez 
consulted a lawyer and ultimately canceled a planned trip 
to Mexico.  TransUnion eventually removed the OFAC alert 
from Ramirez’s file. 

In February 2012, Ramirez sued TransUnion and alleged 
three violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  First, he 
alleged that TransUnion, by using the Name Screen prod-
uct, failed to follow reasonable procedures to ensure the ac-
curacy of information in his credit file.  See §1681e(b).  Sec-
ond, he claimed that TransUnion failed to provide him with 
all the information in his credit file upon his request.  In 
particular,  TransUnion’s  first  mailing  did  not  include  the
fact that Ramirez’s name was a potential match for a name 
on  the  OFAC  list.  See  §1681g(a)(1).    Third,  Ramirez  as-
serted  that  TransUnion  violated  its  obligation  to  provide 
him with a summary of his rights “with each written disclo-
sure,” because TransUnion’s second mailing did not contain 
a summary of Ramirez’s rights.  §1681g(c)(2).  Ramirez re-
quested statutory and punitive damages. 

Ramirez also sought to certify a class of all people in the
United States to whom TransUnion sent a mailing during 
the period from January 1, 2011, to July 26, 2011, that was 
similar  in  form  to  the  second  mailing  that  Ramirez  re-
ceived.  TransUnion opposed certification.  The U. S.  Dis-
trict Court for the Northern District of California rejected 
TransUnion’s  argument  and  certified  the  class.    301 
F. R. D. 408 (2014). 

Before  trial,  the  parties  stipulated  that  the  class  con-
tained 8,185 members, including Ramirez.  The parties also 
stipulated that only 1,853 members of the class (including 
Ramirez)  had  their  credit  reports  disseminated  by