Opinion ID: 4510978
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disclosure and Summary-of-Rights Claims

Text: The class’s second and third claims were that TransUnion failed to: (a) disclose that the class members had been identified as potential OFAC matches when the consumers requested their credit reports, in violation of § 1681g(a); and (b) include a summary-of-rights form when TransUnion mailed the separate OFAC Letters, in violation of § 1681g(c)(2). Although we must analyze standing on a claim-by-claim basis, the injuries produced by these two violations are closely intertwined. Subsections (a) and (c)(2) work together to protect consumers’ interests in having access to the information in their credit reports upon request and understanding how to correct inaccurate information in their credit reports upon receipt. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681g(a), (c)(2). These interests can only be fulfilled together; one without the other is meaningless. And they go to the core of Congress’s purpose in enacting the FCRA: “to protect consumers from the transmission of inaccurate information about them[.]” Guimond, 45 F.3d at 1333; see also Gillespie v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 484 F.3d 938, 941 (7th Cir. 2007) (“A primary purpose of the statutory scheme provided by the disclosure 32 RAMIREZ V. TRANSUNION in § 1681g(a)(1) is to allow consumers to identify inaccurate information in their credit files and correct this information via the grievance procedure established under § 1681i. . . . In writing § 1681g(a)(1), Congress requires disclosure that is both ‘clearly and accurately’ made. An accurate disclosure of unclear information defeats the consumer’s ability to review the credit file, eliminating a consumer protection procedure established by Congress under the FCRA.”). We have previously acknowledged that the rights created by the FCRA to accomplish this purpose “resemble other reputational and privacy interests that have long been protected in the law.” Spokeo III, 867 F.3d at 1114. These are not mere procedural or technical requirements. They protect consumers’ concrete interest in accessing important information about themselves and understanding how to dispute inaccurate information before it reaches potential creditors. Cf. Syed v. M-I, LLC, 853 F.3d 492, 499– 500 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that the FCRA provision requiring prospective employers to obtain a consumer’s consent before obtaining a credit report in a standalone document protected a concrete informational and privacy interest); Nayab v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 942 F.3d 480, 490–93 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that every violation of the FCRA provision that prohibits obtaining a credit report for an unauthorized purpose violates the consumer’s substantive privacy interest, and the consumer has standing “regardless whether the credit report is published or otherwise used by [a] third-party” and “need not allege any further harm” (quoting Eichenberger v. ESPN, Inc., 876 F.3d 979, 983–84 (9th Cir. 2017))). And although the FCRA’s disclosure requirements may seem “procedural” in nature, Congress enacted them because they are the only practical way to protect consumers’ interests in fair and accurate credit reporting. See Spokeo III, 867 F.3d at 1113. RAMIREZ V. TRANSUNION 33 Therefore, step one of the Spokeo III framework is satisfied for both claims. At step two, we have no trouble concluding that TransUnion’s disclosure violations exposed all class members to a material risk of harm to their concrete informational interests. TransUnion sent the class members a document that purported to be their entire credit report, containing no mention of OFAC. This put every class member at a risk of real harm: not knowing that they were falsely being labeled as terrorists, drug dealers, and threats to national security. Then, TransUnion sent the class members the separate OFAC Letter without a summary-ofrights form. This conduct posed a serious risk that consumers not only would be unaware that this damaging label was on their credit reports, but also would be left completely in the dark about how they could get the label off their reports. 10 TransUnion’s conduct therefore exposed 10 The dissent suggests that, to establish standing for these two claims under Section 1681g, every class member must have shown evidence of shock or confusion. However, all members of the class were falsely labeled by TransUnion as terrorists and national security threats and requested a copy of their credit reports, and TransUnion sent the confusing mailings to all class members. The mailings that TransUnion provided to class members were inherently shocking and confusing, and Ramirez, as the class representative, testified to that effect. To require further individualized evidence of shock or confusion would defeat the purpose of class actions. And while there may exist a case where additional evidence would be required to ascertain whether the absent class members were indeed shocked or confused, this case is not it. See also Fed. Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 21 (1998) (“[T]his Court has previously held that a plaintiff suffers an ‘injury in fact’ when the plaintiff fails to obtain information which must be publicly disclosed pursuant to a statute.”); Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 449 (1989) (holding that failure to obtain information subject to disclosure under Federal Advisory Committee Act was sufficient injury to confer standing); Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 374 34 RAMIREZ V. TRANSUNION every class member to a material risk of harm to the core interests the FCRA was designed to protect—their interests in being able to monitor their credit reports and promptly correct inaccuracies. 11