Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, At affordable rates
Reply Post Questions
Choose a classmate’s post to respond to that you learned something additional from. Specifically, how did your answers differ and what did your classmate include that you did not?
What surprised you about this opinion or complaint?
In reading the opinion or complaint, what were the easiest and most challenging parts to understand?
In your opinion, is the legal relief awarded or sought fair? Why or why not?
this is my friend’s post.
TransUnion, a credit reporting company, had a feature that would use third party software that would match first and last name to a criminal database, and include it along with the credit report. The problem was, not all names are unique and many people were being marked as potential drug traffickers or terrorists on a credit report. The people affected sought compensation for the damages done to their reputation by false accusations of criminal activity.
TransUnion violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, made defamatory remarks, and failed to include a summary-of-rights along with the reports disseminated to the plaintiffs.
The court relied on the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Article III (violation of personal rights), and Rule 23 of the Federal Procedures.
For the claim that the false reporting of potential criminal activity, the court found that 1853 of the 6332 plaintiffs had suffered realized damage. For the claim that of not receiving a summary-of-rights, or a version that was not formatted correctly, the court found that there was not sufficient evidence to prove concrete damage done to the plaintiffs. A jury awarded each class member $984.22 in statuary damages, and $6353.08 in punitive damages.
I do think that the relief awarded is fair, and believe that the court could have gone a step further and reprimanded the company TransUnion even further. They caused harm to people by falsely labeling them as potential terrorists or drug traffickers, and then sold that false information to third parties. In my mind, this is grounds for more than awarding the plaintiffs with damages.