Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-297_4g25.pdf
Page Number: 27.0

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

23 

Opinion of the Court 

credit information would be requested by third-party busi-
nesses  and  provided  by  TransUnion  during  the  relevant
time period.  Nor did the plaintiffs demonstrate that there
was  a  sufficient  likelihood  that  TransUnion  would  other-
wise intentionally or accidentally release their information
to third parties.  “Because no evidence in the record estab-
lishes a serious likelihood of disclosure, we cannot simply
presume  a  material  risk  of  concrete  harm.”  951  F. 3d,  at 
1040 (opinion of McKeown, J.).

Moreover, the plaintiffs did not present any evidence that
the 6,332 class members even knew that there were OFAC 
alerts  in  their  internal  TransUnion  credit  files.  If  those 
plaintiffs prevailed in this case, many of them would first 
learn that they were “injured” when they received a check 
compensating them for their supposed “injury.”  It is diffi-
cult to see how a risk of future harm could supply the basis 
for  a  plaintiff ’s  standing  when  the  plaintiff  did  not  even
know that there was a risk of future harm. 

Finally, the plaintiffs advance one last argument for why 
the 6,332 class members are similarly situated to the other 
1,853 class members and thus should have standing.  The 
6,332 plaintiffs note that they sought damages for the en-
tire  46-month  period  permitted  by  the  statute  of  limita-
tions, whereas the stipulation regarding dissemination cov-
ered  only  7  of  those  months.  They  argue  that  the  credit
reports  of many  of  those  6,332  class  members  were  likely 
also sent to third  parties outside of the period covered by
the stipulation because all of the class members requested 
copies  of  their  reports,  and  consumers  usually  do  not  re-
quest  copies  unless  they  are  contemplating  a  transaction 
that would trigger a credit check.

That is a serious argument, but in the end, we conclude
that  it  fails  to  support  standing  for  the  6,332  class  mem-
bers.  The plaintiffs had the burden to prove at trial that
their reports were actually sent to third-party businesses. 
The inferences on which the argument rests are too weak