Class Certification After TransUnion v. Ramirez: Assessing Intangible Injuries, Article III Standing

This CLE course will discuss the Supreme Court's forthcoming decision in TransUnion v. Ramirez (U.S. 2021), which is expected to address a plaintiff's Article III standing when a defendant violates a plaintiff's statutory rights but there is allegedly no "concrete injury." The program will review the arguments made by the parties, the majority opinion, and the opinions of other Justices.

Identifying when an intangible injury is "concrete" and "particularized" enough to support Article III standing has puzzled counsel, scholars, and courts alike, as illustrated by the 29 amicus briefs filed in Ramirez.

After Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), a split developed among the circuit courts. The Second, Fourth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits, on the one hand, adhered closely to the Court's "concrete" and "particularized" injury standard, while the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits, on the other hand, took a more expansive and less literal view of standing in data security and privacy cases.

In Ramirez, the defendant credit reporting agency argued that standing under FCRA does not arise until and unless it actually provides incorrect information to a third party. Thus, according to the defendant, putative class members lacked standing if their "inaccurate" information was not shared, they were therefore improperly joined, and the defendant did not owe them statutory damages.

Listen as this experienced panel of class action counsel discusses Ramirez and the case's impact on standing in class actions.