One could hardly blame Ninth Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown if she wanted to take a victory lap.

She, after all, wrote the dissent in 2020 when two of her colleagues affirmed a jury verdict of more than $60 million against credit agency TransUnion in a case brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act on behalf of a class of consumers whose names were flagged as matching those on a federal list of terrorists, drug traffickers or other serious criminals. The U.S. Supreme Court last year in TransUnion v. Ramirez reversed the Ninth Circuit majority, clarifying and driving home the point that “no concrete harm” means “no standing.”