TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (20-297)

argument 20-297

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 30m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What are the fatal defects in the class certification of TransUnion v. Ramirez?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument this morning in Case 2297, TransUnion v. Ramirez. Mr. Clement?

Unknown 0:09

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the class certified here suffers from two fatal defects, the absence of class member standing and typicality. Each and every member of this class stands to collect thousands of dollars in damages, but the first inkling that many of them will have that they were injured will be receiving a check in the mail. The only thing that members have in common is that they were sent their entire credit file in two envelopes rather than one and received a summary of rights only in the first mailing. But simply receiving all the requisite information in a non-compliant format is not enough to inflict a concrete injury. And Responded fares no better on his claim that TransUnion failed to use reasonable procedures in preparing his credit report.

Unknown 0:56

believe 75% of the class never had a credit report, which is distinct from the credit file sent home upon request, prepared or disseminated during the class period. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that there was a material risk that a report could be prepared and disseminated, but there is no evidence that the risk ever materialized for over 6,000 class members, and yet they all stand to receive a sizable check. To be sure, Ramirez himself suffered significant injuries, but that just highlights the equally fatal typicality problem here. Ramirez had a credit report prepared and disseminated to a car dealer, was hindered in obtaining credit, humiliated in front of family members, and canceled a planned vacation.

Unknown 1:41

That makes him entirely atypical and unrepresentative of the average class member who simply received her credit file in two envelopes in the privacy of her own home. Ramirez suggests that only his legal claims need to be the same. The typicality means something different from commonality, and the typicality requirement precludes a class representative with wholly atypical injuries. A contrary rule would run counter to the basic promise that a class action is representative litigation and would violate the Rules Enabling Act to boot.

John G. Roberts 2:16

Mr. Clement, could each of the class members have sued TransUnion before TransUnion removed the OFAC designation from their reports?

Unknown 2:30

I don't think so, Mr. Chief Justice. Obviously, if this was a suit that was filed while the policy was still in place, we would probably be governed by the certainly impending standard of the Clapper case. And I think since the evidence in this case suggests that the average class member only had a 25% chance that their report would be disseminated, I think that probably means that they did not have a sufficiently impending injury. So I don't think it would matter if this were brought prospectively.

John G. Roberts 3:02

Doesn't that seem a little odd? They're injured by having their names mistakenly or misleadingly on a report that might be disseminated. They just want to take that off to avoid that risk, whether it's 25% or 98%. I don't know why they don't have sufficient standing to at least clear that up. Maybe their damages aren't terribly significant if No one else has seen the report, but it's kind of a surprising thing that somebody with misleading information about someone, that the whole point is they hope somebody asks for it because that's when they get paid, and you can't do anything about it.

Unknown 3:46

Well, Mr. Chief Justice, what you can do about it and what the statute specifically envisions to deal with this situation is you can ask for a copy of your credit file before your credit report is ever disseminated to a third party. And the way the statute envisions this works is you get your credit file, you see the information that you believe is inaccurate or misleading, and then there's a process you can initiate it to get it cleared up before it ever gets disseminated to a third party.

John G. Roberts 4:14

Well, but they've got no reason to ask for a credit report. They've never bounced a check in their life. They've got perfect credit. Why would they even do that?

Unknown 4:25

Well, they have no reason to think they have any problem.