Interested in training for your team? Click here to learn more

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

Recording of a 90-minute CLE video webinar with Q&A

This program is included with the Strafford CLE Pass. Click for more information.
This program is included with the Strafford All-Access Pass. Click for more information.

Conducted on Wednesday, July 21, 2021

Recorded event now available

or call 1-800-926-7926

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.



  1. Overview of standing under Article III
  2. Legacy of Spokeo Inc. v. Robins
  3. TransUnion v. Ramirez
    1. Underlying facts and history
    2. Decision
    3. Impact on standing in class actions


The panel will review these and other critical questions:

  • When is collection and maintenance of false information a concrete injury actionable in federal court under the FCRA?
  • Should damages be considered at certification when determining if "claims and defenses" are typical?
  • Should the lack of concrete injury by some absent class members be understood and analyzed as a class certification issue or an Article III standing issue?
  • What constitutes harm when a defendant violates a statute and what effect will the TransUnion decision have on similar class action lawsuits?


Cummings, Daniel
Daniel E. Cummings

Shook, Hardy & Bacon

Mr. Cummings focuses his litigation practice primarily on product liability matters, handling cases at every stage from...  |  Read More

Neary, Robert
Robert Neary

Of Counsel
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton

Mr. Neary's practice includes various areas of complex commercial litigation as well as class actions and...  |  Read More

Wray, Christopher
Christopher R. Wray

Of Counsel
Shook, Hardy & Bacon

Mr. Wray's practice focuses on defending consumer product class actions and product liability litigation at the...  |  Read More

Access Anytime, Anywhere

Strafford will process CLE credit for one person on each recording. All formats include course handouts.

To find out which recorded format will provide the best CLE option, select your state:

CLE On-Demand Video