Article III standing
Kaplan v. TransUnion LLC
Date: May 20, 2026
Issue: Whether the district court erred in granting class certification in a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
Case Summary: ABA filed a coalition amicus brief urging the Third Circuit to grant TransUnion LLC’s petition to review a district court decision that certified a class action alleging it violated the FCRA by failing to immediately block allegedly fraudulent information from consumers’ credit reports after receiving identity theft reports.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) permits a party to petition a court of appeals for immediate review of a class-certification ruling rather than waiting for final judgment.
In 2024, Lesley Kaplan sued TransUnion, alleging that it violated FCRA by failing to block allegedly fraudulent information from consumers’ credit reports after receiving identity theft reports. Kaplan alleged that an unknown individual used her Wells Fargo credit card for unauthorized transactions in 2023, including a charge that later appeared on her TransUnion report. After Kaplan submitted police and Federal Trade Commission identity theft reports and requested removal, TransUnion denied the request, conducted a reinvestigation, and concluded the charge was legitimate. Kaplan later resolved the issue with Wells Fargo, but continued pursuing claims against TransUnion and sought certification of a nationwide class.
On May 1, 2026, Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted class certification, allowing Kaplan to represent approximately 281,000 consumers. The court found that Rule 23(a) commonality was satisfied because the case presents a shared question: whether TransUnion violated FCRA by failing to block allegedly fraudulent information after receiving required documentation. On May 13, 2026, TransUnion petitioned the Third Circuit for interlocutory review under Rule 23(f).
In its brief, ABA argued that the district court erred by certifying a class that includes uninjured individuals, which defeats predominance under Rule 23(b)(3). ABA emphasized that predominance is not satisfied where courts must conduct individualized inquiries to determine whether class members suffered a concrete Article III injury. According to ABA, each class member would need to prove an individualized injury caused by TransUnion’s alleged failure to block disputed information. ABA argued that receipt of a denial letter alone does not establish a concrete injury and would require individualized “mini-trials” to determine harm.
ABA further argued that the district court’s standing analysis was flawed because it focused only on Kaplan and did not determine whether absent class members suffered concrete injuries, such as dissemination of inaccurate information, emotional distress, or wasted time. ABA contended that these individualized standing and injury issues predominate over common questions, rendering certification improper under Rule 23(b)(3).
ABA also argued that interlocutory review is warranted to correct these errors and to prevent expansion of improperly certified class actions. ABA contended that certification of classes containing uninjured individuals increases settlement pressure by dramatically expanding potential liability.
In addition, ABA argued that the district court’s interpretation of FCRA undermines integrity of consumer reporting system by requiring agencies to immediately block disputed information before verifying validity of identity theft claims. According to ABA, this approach could enable “credit washing,” allow inaccurate removal of valid data, and reduce reliability of credit reporting used by lenders and businesses.
Bottom Line: ABA urged the Third Circuit to review class-certification ruling, arguing that proposed class includes uninjured individuals requiring individualized standing inquiries and that ruling threatens integrity and reliability of consumer reporting system.
Document: Brief
