Supreme Court

Transunion v. Ramirez

Court Type: U.S. Supreme Court
Status: Closed (Judgment)
Last Update: December 7, 2021

What's at Stake

Whether 8,185 people who were all falsely labeled terrorists by TransUnion, a credit reporting company, can be represented in a class action consistent with Article III and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Summary

The ACLU joined the Impact Fund, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., and 23 other civil rights organization to submit an amicus brief in support of Respondent Sergio Ramirez. Mr. Ramirez was one of thousands of individuals who had an “alert” erroneously placed in their credit files because TransUnion employed an error-prone methodology. He filed case representing himself and other people who were also falsely labeled terrorists. Following trial, a jury found in favor of Mr. Ramirez and the class. TransUnion challenges this jury verdict and argues to the Supreme Court that the certified class did not suffer harm, or a material risk of harm, within the meaning of Article III and that Mr. Ramirez’s claims were not typical of the class, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Amici filed a brief to address why Mr. Ramirez’s claims were typical of the class and urge the Court to reject TransUnion’s argument. The Court’s decision will impact the continued viability of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 as a mechanism to vindicate the rights of vulnerable populations.

Support our on-going ligitation and work in the courts Donate now

Learn more about the issues in this case