Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-297_4g25.pdf
Page Number: 39

8 

TRANSUNION LLC v. RAMIREZ 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

was enough to create a case or controversy. 

B 

Here, each class member established a violation of his or 
her  private  rights.  The  jury  found  that  TransUnion  vio-
lated  three  separate  duties  created  by  statute.    See  App.
690.  All three of those duties are owed to individuals, not 
to  the  community  writ  large.  Take  §1681e(b),  which  re-
quires  a  consumer  reporting  agency  to  “follow  reasonable 
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the in-
formation concerning the individual about whom the report
relates.”  This statute creates a duty: to use reasonable pro-
cedures  to  assure  maximum  possible  accuracy.    And  that 
duty  is  particularized  to  an  individual:  the  subject  of  the 
report.  Section 1681g does the same.  It requires an agency 
to “clearly and accurately disclose” to a consumer, upon his
request, “[a]ll information in the consumer’s file at the time
of the request” and to include a written “summary of rights”
with that “written disclosure.”  §§1681g(a), (c)(2).  Those di-
rectives  likewise  create  duties:  provide  all  information  in
the  consumer’s  file  and  accompany  the  disclosure  with  a 
summary of rights.  And these too are owed to a single per-
son: the consumer who requests the information. 

Were there any doubt that consumer reporting agencies
owe  these  duties  to  specific  individuals—and  not  to  the 
larger  community—Congress  created  a  cause  of  action
providing that “[a]ny person who willfully fails to comply” 
with an FCRA requirement “with respect to any consumer 
is liable to that consumer.”  §1681n(a) (emphasis added).  If 
a  consumer  reporting  agency  breaches  any  FCRA  duty
owed  to  a  specific  consumer,  then  that  individual  (not  all
consumers) may sue the agency.  No one disputes that each 
class  member  possesses  this  cause  of  action.   And  no  one 
disputes that the jury found that TransUnion violated each 
class member’s individual rights.  The plaintiffs thus have
a sufficient injury to sue in federal court.