Fernandez v. RentGrow, Inc., 116 F.4th 288 (4th Cir. 2024), began right here — in the District of Maryland — and it now defines the standing battlefield for screening cases throughout the circuit.
The facts
Marco Fernandez applied for an apartment. RentGrow's tenant-screening report flagged him as a "possible match" to the OFAC sanctions list — the list of terrorists and narcotics traffickers. It was wrong. The report went to the property manager, and Fernandez sought to represent a class of similarly flagged applicants.
The holding
Applying TransUnion v. Ramirez, the Fourth Circuit held that dissemination alone was not enough. The defamation-type harm that gives rise to standing requires that the false information register with its recipient:
"Reputational harm can be a concrete injury, but only if the misleading information was brought to the attention of a third party who understood its defamatory significance."
"Without a third party reading and comprehending the accusation—which is to say, without publication—there can be no reputational harm."
Because the evidence showed the leasing agent never actually read the OFAC section of the report, Fernandez lacked standing, and the class certification was vacated.
What it means for your case
Fernandez is a defense win, but for consumers with real cases it is mostly a roadmap. The lesson is evidentiary: in a screening case, establish early what the landlord, employer, or lender actually saw and understood. A denial letter referencing the report, an email mentioning the flagged item, testimony that the decision-maker reviewed the report — any of these transforms the standing picture. And where an application was actually denied because of a false flag, Fernandez poses no obstacle at all: the harm is obvious and concrete.
Screening companies will cite this case in every motion to dismiss. The answer is preparation — which is exactly what a lawyer who knows this circuit's standing trilogy (Dreher, TransUnion, Fernandez) builds into the case from day one.