One could hardly blame Ninth Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown if she wanted to take a victory lap.

She, after all, wrote the dissent in 2020 when two of her colleagues affirmed a jury verdict of more than $60 million against credit agency TransUnion in a case brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act on behalf of a class of consumers whose names were flagged as matching those on a federal list of terrorists, drug traffickers or other serious criminals. The U.S. Supreme Court last year in TransUnion v. Ramirez reversed the Ninth Circuit majority, clarifying and driving home the point that “no concrete harm” means “no standing.”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]