TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez

Supreme Court of the United States · 2021 · Federal Courts

594 U.S. 413 (2021)

Updated August 1, 2026

Federal Courtsconcrete harmArticle III standingArticle IIIstandinginjury in factconcrete injurystatutory violation

Facts

TransUnion used an OFAC Name Screen product that compared only consumers' first and last names to the Treasury Department's OFAC list and placed alerts on reports indicating a consumer was a potential match to a terrorist, drug trafficker, or other serious criminal. A class of 8,185 individuals with OFAC alerts in their TransUnion credit files alleged that TransUnion failed to use reasonable procedures to assure accuracy and also violated statutory requirements governing disclosures and summaries of rights in mailings sent to consumers. The parties stipulated that only 1,853 class members had credit reports with OFAC alerts disseminated to third-party businesses during the relevant class period; the remaining 6,332 did not. At trial, Ramirez testified about being denied a car purchase after a dealership saw the OFAC alert, but the plaintiffs presented no evidence about similar experiences or mailing-related harms for other class members.

Issue

Whether class members alleging Fair Credit Reporting Act violations had Article III standing to seek damages when some had misleading OFAC alerts disseminated to third parties, others had the alerts only in internal credit files, and all but Ramirez alleged only statutory defects in the format of TransUnion's mailings. More specifically, the Court asked what counts as a sufficiently concrete harm for damages claims based on statutory violations.

Rule

To have Article III standing, a plaintiff must show a concrete injury in fact. A statutory violation alone does not satisfy that requirement; courts must ask whether the asserted harm has a close relationship to a harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for suit in American courts. In a damages action, risk of future harm alone cannot qualify as concrete harm unless the exposure to that risk itself causes a separate concrete harm, and an informational injury without adverse effects is insufficient.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lena Ortiz of Phoenix discovered that Desert File Analytics, a consumer reporting agency, had marked her file as a possible trafficker on a government sanctions list. During the class period, the agency sent that report to a furniture lender in Arizona that was evaluating her financing application. Lena sues in federal court for damages under a federal reporting statute that requires reasonable procedures to assure accuracy.

Does Lena have Article III standing for her damages claim?

Explanation. Yes. The majority held that when misleading credit information is actually provided to third parties, the plaintiff suffers a concrete injury because the harm bears a close relationship to the traditional tort of defamation. Article III does not require monetary loss if there is a concrete reputational injury from publication to a third party.