On June 25, the Supreme Court issued a significant ruling for businesses in TransUnion v. Ramirez, validating TransUnion's standing challenge to class claims that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This decision will have far-reaching implications for litigants in cases involving consumer claims, privacy disputes, and data breaches, particularly in the class action context.

The court held that only those class members, including Sergio Ramirez himself, who demonstrated an injury-in-fact had standing under Article III to seek redress under the FCRA in federal court, summarizing its ruling as "no concrete harm, no standing." The court held that 6,332 of 8,185 class members lacked standing and thus had no viable claim that TransUnion failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of their credit files. The court further held that all of the class members, save for Ramirez himself, lacked standing on their other claims related to formatting defects in mailings sent to them by TransUnion.