Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-297_4g25.pdf
Page Number: 29.0

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

25 

Opinion of the Court 

As the plaintiffs note, the disclosure and summary-of-rights
requirements are designed to protect consumers’ interests
in learning of any inaccuracies in their credit files so that 
they can promptly correct the files before they are dissemi-
nated to third parties. 

In  support  of  standing,  the  plaintiffs  thus  contend  that
the  TransUnion  mailings  were  formatted  incorrectly  and 
deprived  them  of  their  right  to  receive  information  in  the 
format  required  by  statute.  But  the  plaintiffs  have  not
demonstrated  that  the  format  of  TransUnion’s  mailings
caused them a harm with a close relationship to a harm tra-
ditionally recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in
American  courts.  See  Spokeo,  578  U. S.,  at  341.    In  fact, 
they do not demonstrate that they suffered any harm at all 
from the formatting violations.  The plaintiffs presented no 
evidence  that,  other  than  Ramirez,  “a  single  other  class 
member  so  much  as  opened  the  dual  mailings,”  “nor  that
they were confused, distressed, or relied on the information 
in any way.”  951 F. 3d, at 1039, 1041 (opinion of McKeown, 
J.) (emphasis added).  The plaintiffs put forth no evidence, 
moreover,  that  the  plaintiffs  would  have  tried  to  correct 
their credit files—and thereby prevented dissemination of
a misleading report—had they been sent the information in
the  proper  format.  Ibid.   Without  any  evidence  of  harm
caused by the format of the mailings, these are “bare proce-
dural  violation[s],  divorced  from  any  concrete  harm.” 
Spokeo, 578 U. S., at 341.  That does not suffice for Article 
III standing.8 

The  plaintiffs  separately  argue  that  TransUnion’s  for-

—————— 

8 The District Court and the Court of Appeals concluded that Ramirez
(in addition to the other 8,184 class members) had standing as to those 
two claims.  In this Court, TransUnion has not meaningfully contested 
Ramirez’s individual standing as to those two claims.  We have no reason 
or basis to disturb the lower courts’ conclusion on Ramirez’s individual 
standing as to those two claims.