US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in class action certification case News
MarkThomas / Pixabay
US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in class action certification case

The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in the class action certification case of TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez. The class accuses TransUnion of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by producing incorrect credit reports.

Sergio Ramirez and other class members matched persons listed on the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List, which designates individuals and entities who may not deal with US persons. Class members received requested credit reports in the mail but in a separate envelope a notice of their possible inclusion on the OFAC list as well. Consequently, many members, like Ramirez, missed the OFAC notice and did not contact authorities to rectify the confusion.

Because of a mistaken credit report, Ramirez “was hindered in obtaining credit at a Nissan dealership, suffered humilation in front of his family, and canceled a vacation.”

Counsel for the petitioner, Paul Clements, argued that Ramirez is an atypical representative of the class, and the class should not have been certified because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3) requires that “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.”

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that while all class members faced the same risk of injury, they did not face the same actual injury that Ramirez experienced. Clements constructed a similar argument in front of the Supreme Court, saying the risk to other class members never materialized, separating those members from Ramirez.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that the FCRA was passed to protect Americans from the specific harm suffered by Ramirez and other class members. She stated that all class members suffered the “exact same” harm of the possibility of an incorrect and defamatory credit report.

The case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to clarify exactly what the rule 23(a)(3) typicality requirement means and how it should be implemented. Oral arguments can be heard here.