Introduction to Class Standing: How TransUnion v. Ramirez Affects the Parties at the Certification Stage

This CLE webinar will offer new class action lawyers the current legal landscape on standing and certification as it has developed following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in TransUnion L.L.C. v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021). The panelists will examine the latest and varying court rulings as to how the Supreme Court's standing analysis affects the parties at the class certification stage and discuss defense strategies for utilizing TransUnion to attack standing at the early stages of class action litigation.

The Supreme Court made a simple pronouncement in TransUnion L.L.C. v. Ramirez: "No concrete harm, no standing." In the ruling, the Court struck down a rare class action jury verdict on the ground that a significant portion of the class lacked Article III standing since they had never actually been injured by the defendant's conduct. Thus, the Supreme Court clarified that a class award cannot stand where significant portions of a class never actually experience any concrete injury. 

What the Supreme Court did not clarify, however, is how this seemingly simple pronouncement affects the earlier stages of class litigation. While the Court made clear that a classwide verdict and damages award cannot stand when the class contains substantial numbers of uninjured members, it did not explain how lower courts should apply that holding at (for example) the class certification stage and whether federal courts may certify a Rule 23 damages class that includes both injured and uninjured members. In 2025, the Court had the chance to but declined to consider that very issue in Laboratory Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Davis, No. 24-304 (U.S. June 5, 2025).

Now, in the aftermath of TransUnion and LabCorp, federal courts are divided on a number of questions, such as when to conduct an Article III standing analysis, how searching that analysis should be, and how many uninjured plaintiffs are too many.

Listen as our authoritative panel highlights the current legal landscape surrounding Article III standing in class actions—both before and after TransUnion. The panel will analyze recent federal court decisions grappling with the Court's pronouncement in TransUnion and offer practical approaches to leveraging TransUnion's analysis at earlier stages in class litigation.