In the wake of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, a new class action lawsuit in Cook County court seeks to make Trans Union, one of the "big three" credit bureaus, pay for allegedly improperly sharing "misinformation" about consumers with the U.S. government and others, which allegedly led to innocent people being wrongly associated with terrorists, drug traffickers, arms dealers and others exposed to U.S. government sanctions.
Named plaintiff, Jose Luis Ramirez Arrizon, Jr., on behalf of himself and others, filed suit against Chicago-based Trans Union in Cook County Circuit Court on Jan.23. He is accusing the credit reporting giant of widespread violations of the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), for its alleged practice of improperly associating presumably innocent consumers with criminals such as terrorists, drug traffickers, money launderers, arms dealers, and other such nefarious individuals through a names-only match system.
The suit goes on to claim that Trans Union made the situation worse for those named individuals by depriving them of the opportunity to inspect and dispute the alleged misinformation before Trans Union may have sold it to third parties. According to the complaint, this practice violated consumer rights and resulted in alleged widespread harm.
The lawsuit asserts the alleged misinformation was shared with the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which enforces trade sanctions and protects U.S. foreign policy and national security goals. OFAC publishes a list of suspicious individuals on its website. The full list is maintained by the Treasury Department and is publicly available.
According to the complaint, the FCRA requires that credit reporting agencies follow reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of information in their reports. It requires more than just a "possibility of accuracy". Plaintiffs are asserting that Trans Union's procedures fall short of the accuracy standard, claiming they were just "possible" matches for persons on the OFAC list.
FCRA also requires that CRAs provide consumers with information that could or would be sold about them; and that consumers have the opportunity to review their files at no charge once every 12 months, after a credit denial, and other circumstances.
The lawsuit claims this practice is not accidental but is, instead, a practice allegedly designed deliberately to increase profits and prove the program "works".
Persons on the OFAC list are legally ineligible for credit in the U.S., may not be employed, cannot conduct business, and are potentially subject to deportation or criminal prosecution.
Trans Union has already established a history of mishandling OFAC information when the court found them liable for failure to disclose OFAC alerts in consumer files.
In a previous case, Ramirez v Trans Union filed in California in Nov. of 2017, the named plaintiff in the current case, identified as Jose Luis Ramirez Arrizon Jr., was among a group of roughly 8,000 class members pressing similar claims against Trans Union.
The case ultimately landed in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. In a 5-4 vote, the court ruled no one can press such claims in federal court under the FCRA, unless they can demonstrate the alleged misinformation was shared with a third party. In that ruling, the court determined only 1,853 members of the original lawsuit had a valid claim to recover damages. Arrizon was not among those individuals who were awarded damages following the court's decision in favor of the plaintiffs, as they did not submit one.
In dissent, four Supreme Court justices warned the majority that their ruling was all but inviting plaintiffs to now bring such actions under the FCRA against Trans Union and perhaps others in state court, instead.
After a federal court in California signed off on a class action settlement involving only those 1,853 class members with valid claims, Arrizon and others signed on to do just that, now filing suit in Illinois state court in Cook County on behalf of claimants not included in the recent settlement.
Plaintiffs are demanding a trial by jury, damages, court costs and legal fees.
Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Jordan M. Sartell, James A. Francis, John Soumilas and Lauren KW Brennan of the firm Francis and Mailman, of Philadelphia.