• Restricts employers from considering criminal accusations and arrests pending at the time of application;
• Restricts consideration of convictions that occur during employment;
• Prohibits inquiry of non-pending arrests and criminal accusations and adjournments in contemplation of dismissal;
• Prohibits inquiries regarding non-criminal offenses and denial of employment due to same;
• Restricts an employer's right to revocation of a conditional offer of employment; and
• Requires employers to affirmatively solicit from the applicant information for the Fair Chance Act factors.

The trade association argued that this language intended to encompass all claims related to information contained in consumer reports; the defendants argued for a more narrow interpretation. Siding with the trade association, the court determined that the language within the FCRA reflected an affirmative choice by Congress to set "uniform federal standards" as to the information contained in consumer credit reports. As such, Maine's attempt to exclude additional types of information intruded upon the subject matter Congress expressly sought to preempt from state regulation. In short, the court determined that Maine amendments were preempted by the FCRA.

The class action, filed in February 2012, alleged that Sergio L. Ramirez (class representative) was unable to purchase a vehicle as a result of information TransUnion delivered to lenders. The representative's information indicated that he was a potential match for two entries in the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)'s database of criminals and terrorists. The class argued that TransUnion failed to ensure accuracy as required by the FCRA by failing to cross-check OFAC name hits with other data points, such as date of birth.

In June 2017, a California federal court jury awarded $8.1 million in statutory damages and $52 million in punitive damages. The court concluded that TransUnion violated the FCRA by incorrectly associating certain consumers to similarly named criminals and terrorists in the database. The award for punitive damages was subsequently vacated by a Ninth Circuit panel and remanded to lower court with instructions to reduce the payment per class member. However, in April the court agreed to stay its decision in light of TransUnion's pursuit of an appeal to the Supreme Court.

TransUnion contends that Ramirez failed to demonstrate that a third party ever viewed allegedly negative credit reports associated with the numerous other class members. TransUnion further claims that the Ninth Circuit contradicted its own precedent. In two prior cases, the court had determined that the risk of injury only becomes material when a third party physically accesses documents.