TransUnion's Standing Analysis and Class Certification: Practical Defense Strategies for Attacking Standing Early

Description

In June 2021, the Supreme Court made a simple pronouncement in TransUnion L.L.C. v. Ramirez: "No concrete harm, no standing." In the ruling, the Court struck down a rare class action jury verdict on the ground that a significant portion of the class lacked Article III standing since they had never actually been injured by the defendant's conduct. Thus, the Supreme Court clarified that a class award cannot stand where significant portions of a class never actually experience any concrete injury.

What the Supreme Court did not clarify, however, is how this seemingly simple pronouncement affects the earlier stages of class litigation. While the Court made clear that a classwide verdict and damages award cannot stand when the class contains substantial numbers of uninjured members, it did not explain how lower courts should apply that holding at (for example) the class-certification stage.

Now, in the aftermath of TransUnion, federal courts are divided on a number of questions, such as when to conduct an Article III standing analysis, how searching that analysis should be done, and how many uninjured plaintiffs are too many.

Listen as our authoritative panel highlights the current legal landscape surrounding Article III standing in class actions--both before and after TransUnion. The panel will analyze recent federal court decisions grappling with the Court's pronouncement in TransUnion and offer practical approaches to leveraging TransUnion’s analysis at earlier stages in class litigation.