Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-297_4g25.pdf
Page Number: 30.0

26 

TRANSUNION LLC v. RAMIREZ 

Opinion of the Court 

matting violations created a risk of future harm.  Specifi-
cally,  the  plaintiffs  contend  that  consumers  who  received
the information in this dual-mailing format were at risk of
not  learning  about  the  OFAC  alert  in  their  credit  files. 
They  say  that  they  were  thus  at  risk  of  not  being  able  to
correct  their  credit  files  before  TransUnion  disseminated 
credit  reports  containing  the  misleading  information  to 
third-party businesses.  As noted above, the risk of future 
harm on its own does  not support Article III standing for 
the plaintiffs’ damages claim.  In any event, the plaintiffs 
made no effort here to explain how the formatting error pre-
vented them from contacting TransUnion to correct any er-
rors before misleading credit reports were disseminated to
third-party  businesses.    To  reiterate,  there  is no  evidence 
that  “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.).

For its part, the United States as amicus curiae, but not 
the plaintiffs, separately asserts that the plaintiffs suffered 
a  concrete  “informational  injury”  under  several  of  this 
Court’s precedents.  See Federal Election Comm’n v. Akins, 
524 U. S. 11 (1998); Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 
491 U. S. 440 (1989).  We disagree.  The plaintiffs did not 
allege that they failed to receive any required information.
They argued only that they received it in the wrong format. 
Therefore, Akins and Public Citizen do not control here.  In 
addition, those cases involved denial of information subject 
to public-disclosure or sunshine laws that entitle all mem-
bers of the public to certain information.  This case does not 
involve such a public-disclosure law.  See Casillas v. Madi-
son  Avenue  Assocs.,  Inc.,  926  F. 3d  329,  338  (CA7  2019); 
Trichell v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 964 F. 3d 990, 1004 
(CA11  2020).    Moreover,  the  plaintiffs  have  identified  no
“downstream consequences” from failing to receive the re-
quired information.  Trichell, 964 F. 3d, at 1004.  They did