Supreme Court Leaves Open Uninjured Class Member Question

The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether a federal court may certify a damages class that includes both injured and uninjured members, then dismissed the case as improvidently granted after oral argument without deciding the question. Justice Kavanaugh dissented and would have held such classes cannot be certified. The Ninth Circuit's decision approving the class stands.

June 5, 2025 · Analysis by Shawn Jaffer

Case: Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Davis
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Citation: No. 24-304 (U.S. June 5, 2025) (per curiam)
Decided: June 5, 2025
Bottom line: Whether every member of an FCRA damages class must show a concrete injury before certification is still unsettled and varies by circuit.

Background

Many FCRA cases are brought as class actions. A credit bureau or background screener that uses the same flawed procedure on thousands of people can be sued on behalf of all of them, often for statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per person for willful violations. Before a damages class can be certified, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) requires that common questions “predominate” over individual ones.

In TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (2021), an FCRA case, the Supreme Court held that every class member must have suffered a concrete injury to recover damages. But it left a related question open in a footnote: “We do not here address the distinct question whether every class member must demonstrate standing before a court certifies a class.” Lower courts have split on how to handle classes that may include some uninjured people.

Labcorp v. Davis was a disability-access case, not an FCRA case. Legally blind patients sued Labcorp over check-in kiosks they could not use, seeking statutory damages under California law. The district court certified a class, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed under its rule that a class may be certified even if it “potentially includes more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members.” The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether a federal court may certify a damages class that includes both injured and uninjured members.

What the court held

After briefing and oral argument, the Court issued a one-sentence per curiam order on June 5, 2025: “The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.” It gave no reasons and decided nothing about class certification. The Ninth Circuit’s judgment remains in place.

Justice Kavanaugh dissented. He wrote that the plaintiffs’ argument that the case was moot was “insubstantial” and that he would have reached the merits. On those merits, he “would hold that a federal court may not certify a damages class that includes both injured and uninjured members,” reasoning that “when a damages class includes both injured and uninjured members, common questions do not predominate.” No other Justice joined him.

Our take

The dismissal means the law stays where it was, which matters for FCRA cases more than for most. After TransUnion, defendants routinely argue that a proposed class includes people whose reports were never sent to anyone or who suffered no real harm, and that certification should be denied for that reason alone. Courts in different circuits answer that argument differently. Some allow certification if uninjured members can be identified and removed later; others are stricter.

Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent shows how at least one Justice would answer the question, and defendants will cite it. But it is a dissent, not the law. Consumers should also understand the practical point he did not address: in many FCRA cases the same defective procedure affects every class member in the same way, and records can show whose reports were furnished to third parties. Careful class definitions remain the best answer to the injury question.

The issue is likely to return to the Court in another case.

What it means if your report is wrong

Even if a problem affects many people, your individual claim matters. Keep copies of the report, any denial or adverse action letters, and records of who received your report and when. That evidence of a concrete harm, such as a denied loan, apartment, or job, strengthens an individual claim and helps show you belong in any class. A free case review can assess whether your situation supports an individual or class claim, and there is no fee unless we win.

Sources

Primary

Commentary we reviewed

Updated November 1, 2026. "Our take" is the firm's opinion. This page is general information, not legal advice, and later decisions may change the law.