Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-297_4g25.pdf
Page Number: 52

2 

TRANSUNION LLC v. RAMIREZ 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

500.  And Congress may protect those rights by authorizing 
suits not only for past harms but also for the material risk
of future ones.  See Spokeo, 578 U. S., at 341–343; ante, at 
15 (THOMAS, J., dissenting).  Under those precedents, this
case should be easy.  In the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Con-
gress determined to protect consumers’ reputations from in-
accurate  credit  reporting.  TransUnion  willfully  violated 
that  statute’s  provisions  by  preparing  credit  files  that
falsely called the plaintiffs potential terrorists, and by ob-
scuring  that  fact  when  the  plaintiffs  requested  copies  of
their files.  To say, as the majority does, that the resulting 
injuries  did  not  “ ‘exist’  in  the  real  world”  is  to  inhabit  a
world I don’t know.  Ante, at 10.  And to make that claim in 
the  face  of  Congress’s  contrary  judgment  is  to  exceed  the 
judiciary’s  “proper—and  properly  limited—role.”  Warth, 
422 U. S., at 498; see ante, at 12–13 (THOMAS, J., dissent-
ing).

I add a few words about the majority’s view of the risks
of  harm  to  the  plaintiffs.  In  addressing  the  claim  that 
TransUnion failed to maintain accurate credit files, the ma-
jority argues that the “risk of dissemination” of the plain-
tiffs’ credit information to third parties is “too speculative.” 
Ante, at 22.  But why is it so speculative that a company in
the business of selling credit reports to third parties will in
fact sell a credit report to a third party?  See also ante, at 
15 (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (noting that “nearly 25% of the 
class”  already  had  false  reports  “sent  to  potential  credi-
tors”).  And in addressing the claims of faulty disclosure to 
the plaintiffs, the majority makes a set of curious assump-
tions.  According to the majority, people who specifically re-
quest a copy of their credit report may not even “open[ ] ” the 
envelope.  Ante, at 25  (emphasis in original).  And people
who receive multiple opaque mailings are not likely to be
“confused.”  Ibid.; but see Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U. S. 
___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 14) (explaining that a “series of