Ramirez v. TransUnion LLC, No. 17-17244 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Consumers filed suit against TransUnion under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) after the agency—aware that its practice was unlawful—incorrectly placed terrorist alerts on the front page of the consumers' credit reports and subsequently sent the consumers confusing and incomplete information about the alerts and how to get them removed. The jury assessed $60 million in damages for three willful violations of the statute.
The Ninth Circuit held that every member of a class certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 must satisfy the basic requirements of Article III standing at the final stage of a money damages suit when class members are to be awarded individual monetary damages. In this case, the panel held that each of the 8,185 class members had standing on each of the class claims. The panel rejected TransUnion's arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, Rule 23 certification, and statutory damages. However, the panel held that the punitive damages award is excessive in violation of constitutional due process. The panel reduced the punitive damages award, but otherwise affirmed the verdict and judgment.
Court Description: Fair Credit Reporting Act. The panel affirmed in part and reversed and vacated in part the district court’s judgment against credit reporting agency TransUnion LLC following a jury trial in a consumer class action brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. TransUnion, aware that its practice was unlawful, incorrectly placed terrorist alerts on the front page of the consumers’ credit reports and subsequently sent the consumers confusing and incomplete information about the alerts and how to get them removed. The jury assessed $60 million in damages for three FCRA violations: (1) willful failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure accuracy of the terrorist alerts in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b); (2) willful failure to disclose to the class members their entire credit reports by excluding the alerts from the reports in violation of § 1681g(a)(1); and (3) willful failure to provide a summary of rights in violation of § 1681g(c)(2). Affirming in part, the panel held that every member of a class certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, rather than only the class representative, must satisfy the basic requirements of Article III standing at the final stage of a money damages suit when class members are to be awarded individual monetary damages. The panel concluded that each of the 8,185 class members had standing on each of the class claims because TransUnion’s reckless handling of RAMIREZ V. TRANSUNION 3 information from the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control exposed every class member to a real risk of harm to their concrete privacy, reputational, and informational interests protected by the FCRA. As to the reasonable procedures claim, distinguishing a decision of the D.C. Circuit, the panel held that the violation of a statutory right constituted a concrete injury under the test set forth in Robins v. Spokeo Inc., 867 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2017). The panel held that each class member also established standing on the disclosure and summary-of-rights claims. The panel rejected TransUnion’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, Rule 23 certification, and statutory damages. The panel held that TransUnion was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law or to a new trial on the ground that plaintiff failed to prove the willfulness of TransUnion’s FCRA violations. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the class representative’s claims were typical of the class’s claims and in certifying and refusing to decertify the class. In addition, the jury’s award of statutory damages near the high end of the range was clearly justified. Reversing and vacating in part, the panel held that the punitive damages award was excessive in violation of constitutional due process. The panel remanded with instructions to reduce the punitive-damages award from $6,353.08 per class member to $3,936.88 per class member. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge McKeown agreed with the majority that Article III and the Rules Enabling Act require all members of a damages class to have standing at trial, and so the 1,853 class members whose inaccurate information was disclosed to a third party had standing to assert a reasonable procedures claim. Judge McKeown also agreed that the punitive damages award was 4 RAMIREZ V. TRANSUNION impermissibly excessive. She dissented in part because, in her view, no one but the class representative and the class members whose information was disclosed to a third party had standing to assert a reasonable procedures claim, and only the class representative had standing to bring the disclosure and summary-of-rights claims.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 23, 2021.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.