Sixth Circuit Upholds Reversal of $18.3M Verdict Against TransUnion

The Sixth Circuit has declined to reconsider its decision to overturn an $18.3 million jury award against TransUnion LLC. The ruling came as a setback for Endless River Technologies, a startup that accused the credit reporting giant of improperly retaining intellectual property tied to an insurance quote marketplace after their partnership ended.

In a brief order issued Friday, the appellate court rejected Endless River’s request for a rehearing, offering no further explanation. However, it released an amended opinion that reaffirmed its prior conclusion: the trial court had erred in allowing testimony from an unreliable expert, and without that testimony, the startup’s case lacked a solid foundation.

The Dispute Over Quote Exchange

Endless River initiated legal action against TransUnion in April 2018, following the collapse of their business arrangement to develop Quote Exchange, an online platform designed to facilitate the buying and selling of insurance leads. The startup contended that TransUnion breached their agreement by demanding payment for the return of proprietary assets, including the platform’s source code.

During trial, Endless River relied on an expert witness to support its claim that losing access to the source code resulted in damages amounting to $55 million. The jury ultimately awarded the company $18.3 million in damages. However, the trial judge later set aside the verdict, ruling that the damages awarded were consequential in nature and barred under the terms of the parties’ contract.

Appellate Court Cites Flawed Expert Testimony

When the case reached the Sixth Circuit, the appellate panel upheld the lower court’s decision—but for different reasons. The panel determined that Endless River’s damages expert had presented speculative and unreliable testimony, making the jury’s award legally unsustainable.

Endless River challenged this finding in a petition for rehearing, arguing that the Sixth Circuit’s ruling effectively stripped the company of its Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. The startup asserted that the proper course of action should have been to order a new trial rather than vacate the award entirely.

Despite these objections, the Sixth Circuit refused to revisit its ruling, reinforcing its stance that the expert testimony should never have been admitted in the first place.

The Trial and Its Aftermath

Following the dissolution of the TransUnion-Endless River partnership, litigation ensued, culminating in a September 2022 damages trial. The jury sided with Endless River, awarding $18.3 million on its breach of contract claim.

However, in early 2023, the trial judge overturned the verdict, concluding that the damages awarded were prohibited under the contract. The Sixth Circuit, in reviewing the case, found an alternative reason to reject the award: the damages expert’s testimony failed to meet the necessary legal standards, rendering the jury’s decision invalid.

The three-judge panel—comprising Circuit Judges Alice M. Batchelder, Jane Branstetter Stranch, and Stephanie Dawkins Davis—determined that without credible expert testimony, Endless River lacked the evidence needed to justify an award.

What Comes Next?

With the Sixth Circuit’s refusal to reconsider its decision, Endless River faces limited options. While the company could petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review, such appeals are rarely successful. If no further legal action is pursued, TransUnion will avoid financial liability in the dispute.

This ruling underscores the importance of reliable expert testimony in commercial litigation, as even a jury verdict can be overturned if the supporting evidence fails to meet legal scrutiny.

The Law Firms Involved

Endless River Technologies was represented by McDonald Hopkins LLC and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.

TransUnion was defended by Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Tucker Ellis LLP.

Case Information

Case Name: Endless River Technologies LLC v. TransUnion LLC

Case Numbers: 23-3087 and 23-3144

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit