The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's partial grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Milliman, Inc., establishing new precedent for standing requirements in class action lawsuits under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The decision, filed Jan. 9, 2026, in *Healy v. Milliman, Inc.*, clarifies how courts must evaluate standing for both named plaintiffs and class members in money damages suits following class certification.
Named plaintiff James Healy filed the lawsuit alleging that Milliman's inaccurate consumer reports violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington certified an "inaccuracy class" to pursue claims against the consulting and actuarial services company.
The legal dispute centered on standing requirements following the Supreme Court's 2021 decision in *TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez*, which established that plaintiffs must demonstrate concrete injury to have standing in federal court. Milliman sought partial summary judgment, arguing that Healy needed to demonstrate class-wide standing for the inaccuracy class to proceed with the lawsuit.
The district court granted Milliman's motion for partial summary judgment, holding that under *TransUnion*, Healy was required to present direct evidence of concrete injury on a class-wide basis but had failed to do so. District Judge John C. Coughenour presided over the case, which originated as case number 2:20-cv-01473-JCC.
Healy appealed the district court's ruling through an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which allows appeals of certain non-final orders when they involve controlling questions of law and immediate appeal may materially advance the litigation.
The Ninth Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Sidney R. Thomas, Daniel A. Bress, and Salvador Mendoza Jr., heard oral arguments on Nov. 19, 2025, in San Francisco. Judge Thomas authored the opinion for the court.
In its analysis, the appeals court agreed with the district court's interpretation that the Supreme Court's logic in *TransUnion* requires both named and unnamed members of a certified class seeking money damages to demonstrate standing at the summary judgment stage. This represents a clarification of how *TransUnion*'s standing requirements apply specifically to class action litigation.
However, the Ninth Circuit's reversal suggests the district court may have applied an incorrect standard or improperly evaluated the evidence when granting summary judgment. The appeals court held that while standing must be demonstrated by all class members, "the usual summary judgment standards apply" to that determination.
This distinction is significant for class action practice, as it indicates that courts should not impose heightened evidentiary burdens beyond the normal summary judgment framework when evaluating standing. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is appropriate only when there are no genuine disputes of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act provides consumers with legal recourse when credit reporting agencies or information furnishers provide inaccurate information that causes harm. Section 1681e(b) specifically requires consumer reporting agencies to follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of consumer reports.
Class action lawsuits under the FCRA have become increasingly common as consumers seek to address systemic inaccuracies in credit reporting. The *TransUnion* decision created uncertainty about how courts should evaluate standing in these cases, particularly for unnamed class members who may not have identical injuries to the named plaintiff.
The Ninth Circuit's decision provides important guidance for practitioners handling FCRA class actions and similar consumer protection cases. By requiring evidence of standing from all class members while maintaining normal summary judgment standards, the court creates a framework that balances the Supreme Court's standing requirements with practical considerations for class action litigation.
The case now returns to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the appeals court's opinion. The district court will need to reconsider Milliman's summary judgment motion under the clarified legal standard established by the Ninth Circuit.
This ruling affects how courts in the Ninth Circuit, which includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, will handle similar class action cases going forward. The decision may also influence how other federal circuits approach standing issues in class action litigation under federal consumer protection statutes.
The case highlights the ongoing evolution of class action practice following *TransUnion* and demonstrates how appellate courts are working to clarify the Supreme Court's guidance for lower courts handling complex class action litigation involving standing requirements.