TransUnion v. Ramirez: a name match on a terrorist list
In 2011 a car dealer refused to sell Sergio Ramirez a car because his TransUnion credit report flagged his name as a possible match to a federal list of terrorists and drug traffickers. A jury awarded a class of 8,185 people more than $60 million. In 2021 the Supreme Court held that only the 1,853 people whose reports actually went to businesses had standing to collect damages for the inaccurate alert.
A public record, not a client of this firm. Everything on this page comes from the Supreme Court's opinion cited at the end. Usher Law Group did not represent anyone in this matter, we publish no results of our own, and nothing here predicts the outcome of any other case.
On February 27, 2011, Sergio Ramirez went to a Nissan dealership in Dublin, California, with his wife and his father-in-law to buy a Nissan Maxima. They picked a color and agreed on a price. The dealership ran credit checks on Ramirez and his wife.
His TransUnion report came back with a line in capital letters: an "OFAC ADVISOR ALERT," saying his name matched a name on the OFAC database. A salesman told him Nissan would not sell him the car because his name was on a "terrorist list." His wife bought the car in her own name.
The next day Ramirez called TransUnion and asked for his file. TransUnion mailed it the same day, with the federally required summary of consumer rights. The file did not mention the alert. A day later a second letter arrived saying his name was considered a potential match to names on the OFAC list. That letter did not include the summary of rights. Ramirez, worried, talked to a lawyer and canceled a planned trip to Mexico. TransUnion eventually removed the alert.
How the alert got there
The Office of Foreign Assets Control, in the Treasury Department, keeps a list of "specially designated nationals": terrorists, drug traffickers and other serious criminals with whom American businesses generally may not deal. Beginning in 2002, TransUnion sold an add-on product, OFAC Name Screen Alert. When a business bought it, TransUnion ran third-party software comparing the consumer's name to the list.
At the time, the software compared only the first and last name. Not the date of birth, not the Social Security number, not the address. Anyone who shared a first and last name with a person on the list could be flagged as a potential match. Ramirez was one of thousands.
What the law says
The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires a consumer reporting agency to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information in a report (15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)). It requires the agency to disclose everything in your file when you ask (§ 1681g(a)), and to include a summary of your rights with each written disclosure (§ 1681g(c)(2)).
For a willful violation, a consumer may recover actual damages or statutory damages of $100 to $1,000, plus punitive damages, costs and attorney's fees (§ 1681n(a)). For a negligent violation, actual damages, costs and fees (§ 1681o(a)). Ramirez sued in February 2012 on all three claims and asked to represent everyone who received a similar letter from TransUnion between January 1 and July 26, 2011.
What the courts did
The federal court in Northern California certified the class. The parties agreed it had 8,185 members, and that only 1,853 of them had their reports, with the alert, sent to a business during the class period. The trial lasted six days. Ramirez testified about the dealership. The jury found for the class and awarded each member $984.22 in statutory damages and $6,353.08 in punitive damages, a total of more than $60 million.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed but cut the punitive damages to $3,936.88 per person, bringing the total to about $40 million.
On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court reversed, five to four. Justice Kavanaugh wrote that a plaintiff suing for damages in federal court needs a concrete injury, not just a statutory violation: "An injury in law is not an injury in fact." Applying that test:
- The 1,853 had standing. Their reports, calling them potential terrorists, went to businesses. That harm has a close relationship to defamation, a harm courts have always recognized. The Court had "no trouble" finding it concrete.
- The other 6,332 did not. Their files held the same alert, but it was never sent to anyone during the class period. The Court held that inaccurate information sitting in a file, without dissemination, is not a concrete harm, and that the risk it might be sent later is not enough in a suit for damages.
- The mailing claims failed for everyone but Ramirez. The class did not show the format of TransUnion's letters caused them concrete harm.
Justice Thomas wrote the principal dissent, joined by three justices. The case went back to the lower courts. This page does not report what happened after that.
Ramirez v. TransUnion
Statutory damages of $984.22 and punitive damages of $6,353.08 per class member. The Supreme Court held only the 1,853 members whose reports reached a business had standing on the accuracy claim.
Source: Supreme Court of the United States. A public record of someone else's case, not a result of this firm and not a prediction.
What it means for you now
Ramirez is often described as a defeat for consumers. For a person with a real error on a real report, it draws a line that is easy to understand.
- Dissemination is the key fact. If a lender, landlord, employer or dealer pulled the report with the error, you have the kind of harm the Court called concrete. Find out who pulled your report: the inquiries section lists them.
- Keep the denial. The letter refusing credit, the apartment rejection, the email from the dealer. Ramirez had a salesman's words and a car bought in someone else's name.
- Dispute in writing. The agency must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation within 30 days (§ 1681i(a)). A verified error after a dispute is its own violation. Our post on why your dispute was verified anyway explains how that happens.
Check what the credit bureau did
The FCRA requires a company found liable to pay the consumer's reasonable attorney's fees and costs. See credit report errors and mixed files for how a claim is built.
The pages this story points to
Credit report errors
The accuracy duty and what a claim has to show.
Read →Mixed files
When someone else's name or record lands in your file.
Read →The FCRA
Damages, deadlines and fees under the federal credit reporting law.
Read →Sources. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), slip opinion (supremecourt.gov); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 1681o, 1681i.
Common questions
Does TransUnion v. Ramirez mean I cannot sue over a credit report error?
No. It means a person suing for damages in federal court must show concrete harm. The Court held that an inaccurate report sent to a business is concrete harm, like defamation. What was not enough was an error that sat in the file and was never sent to anyone. If a lender, landlord or employer saw the error, the case is on the Ramirez side of the line.
What was the OFAC alert?
The Office of Foreign Assets Control, part of the Treasury Department, keeps a list of people businesses may not deal with, including terrorists and drug traffickers. TransUnion sold an add-on product that compared a consumer's first and last name to that list and, at the time, compared nothing else, so a common name could produce a match.
How long do I have to sue over a credit report error?
Under the FCRA, the earlier of two years after you discover the violation or five years after it happened (15 U.S.C. 1681p). The deadlines page explains how to count.
Tell us what they did.
One conversation with an attorney, in your language. We tell you which laws the collector or the credit bureau broke, which deadline runs first, and what to save this week. If it is not a case we can take, we say so and tell you where to go.
(718) 484-7510The FDCPA and the FCRA require a company found liable to pay the consumer’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Our fee arrangement is confirmed in a written retainer before we begin. English, Russian and Spanish in-house; an interpreter for any other language.