Article III standing
Kaplan v. TransUnion LLC
Date: Oct. 8, 2026
Issue: Whether the district court erred in granting class certification without determining whether class members suffered concrete injuries sufficient to establish Article III standing and whether individual standing questions predominate over common issues.
Case Summary: ABA filed an amicus brief urging the Third Circuit to reverse a Pennsylvania federal court decision that certified a class action alleging TransUnion violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failing to immediately block allegedly fraudulent information from consumers’ credit reports after receiving identity theft reports.
In 2024, Lesley Kaplan sued TransUnion, alleging it violated FCRA by failing to block allegedly fraudulent information from consumers’ credit reports after receiving identity theft reports. Kaplan alleged an unknown individual used her Wells Fargo credit card for unauthorized transactions in 2023, including a charge that later appeared on her TransUnion report. Kaplan submitted identity theft reports to the police and Federal Trade Commission and also requested removal. But 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), with ABA filing an amicus brief supporting TransUnion. On June 25, 2026, the Third Circuit granted TransUnion’s petition.
In its most recent amicus brief, ABA argued that the district court erred in certifying a class that included uninjured individuals, undermining Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement. ABA explained that courts would need to assess each class member’s circumstances to determine whether TransUnion’s failure to block disputed information caused actual harm. These individual inquiries would prevent common issues from predominating.
Next, ABA argued that the district court’s Article III standing analysis was flawed because it focused on Kaplan’s alleged injuries without determining whether other class members suffered concrete harm. ABA also noted that TransUnion disclosed Kaplan’s credit information to Barclays before she submitted her block request, meaning the alleged failure to block could not have caused that disclosure. ABA maintained that the court failed to establish that other class members suffered similar injuries.
ABA also warned that including uninjured individuals in a class increases litigation costs, pressures defendants to settle, and reduces compensation for injured class members. ABA emphasized that Rule 23’s predominance requirement protects against these outcomes by requiring courts to assess individual issues before certifying a class.
Finally, ABA argued that the district court misinterpreted the FCRA by requiring credit reporting agencies (CRAs) to block disputed information before reviewing the validity of consumer requests. ABA warned that this approach could encourage credit washing, allowing consumers to remove accurate information through false identity theft claims. ABA maintained that this practice would undermine the accuracy of credit reports and harm lenders and consumers.
Bottom Line: ABA urged the Third Circuit to reverse class certification, maintaining that individual questions of injury defeat predominance and that requiring CRAs to block disputed information without first reviewing its validity threatens the accuracy of consumer credit reports.
Document: Brief
