Ramirez v. Trans Union LLC

Fair Credit Reporting Act violations

Northern District

U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley

Plaintiff’s Lawyers: Carol McLean Brewer, Andrew J. Ogilvie, Anderson, Ogilvie & Brewer LLP; James A. Francis, John Soumilas, Francis & Mailman PC

Defense Lawyers: Julia A. Strickland, Stephen J. Newman, Christine E. Ellice, Jason S. Yoo, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP; Bruce Luckman, Sherman Silverstein Kohl Rose and Podolsky

Anderson, Ogilvie & Brewer LLP and Francis & Mailman PC won a $60 million verdict last June in a class action alleging Trans Union LLC falsely labeled consumers as terrorists or criminals in credit reports sold to third parties. The class action claimed that Trans Union violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act as well as the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act by failing to assure maximum possible accuracy of consumer reports, denying consumers the information in their credit reports, and not providing individuals a summary of their rights.

Class members were awarded over $7,200 each in punitive and statutory damages. Ramirez v. Trans Union LLC, 12-CV00632 (N.D. Cal., filed Feb. 9, 2012).

“This case is about false credit reporting of privately assembled credit data, not about the use of the government’s [Office of Foreign Assets Control] list or government’s national security efforts,” wrote plaintiff’s attorney John Soumilas in a response to a motion for summary judgment.

Trans Union’s credit report typically checks consumers against the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control database, which lists terrorists and other criminals. The class action contended the credit reports conflated the class of consumers with identically named individuals listed in the OFAC database.

Lead plaintiff Sergio L. Ramirez filed the suit when he learned he could not buy a car because Trans Union’s credit report listed him as a match with two entries on the database. Ramirez said the credit agency did not explain how the error could be corrected when he asked customer service.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys contended that Trans Union did not maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy because it did not cross-check OFAC name hits with other information, like date of birth. They also claimed Trans Union violated the FCRA and CCRAA by refusing to disclose credit reports to consumers.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys declined to comment about the verdict.

Defense attorneys with Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP and Sherman Silverstein Kohl Rose and Podolsky also declined to comment.

“We continue to believe that our delivery of information regarding a potential name match to the OFAC list maintained by the U.S. government is conducted in compliance with all FCRA and Treasury rules and regulations,” said Trans Union spokesperson David Blumberg in an email.

Corley rejected Trans Union’s bid for a new trial or reduced damages. Newman notified the court in December that he filed an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

— Winston Cho