EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
Mixed messages. Nuance. Intent. The challenges of understanding what someone means in a text message is not easy. It should be, because you can use all the words in the English language to describe your intention and what you want, but as we all know, when it comes to texting, most people don’t use all the words in the English language. And things can escalate quickly. A creditor is facing claims it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by accessing an individual’s credit report without her permission, alleging that when she texted she would “reach out another time,” that meant their business was concluded.
The background: The plaintiff and the defendant engaged in a text conversation back in May. They texted about which particular vehicle the plaintiff was interested in and the plaintiff even supplied her Social Security number when asked for it by the salesperson.
- The conversation went sideways when the salesperson asked the plaintiff if she had any credit locks on her credit reports. The plaintiff responded that the only account that was open was with TransUnion.
- The salesperson said all the accounts needed to be unlocked, to which the plaintiff said she didn’t want to do that and preferred to work with a bank that used TransUnion. The salesperson said that wasn’t possible and the plaintiff responded, “Okay. I’ll contact you another time.”
- Three days later, the plaintiff received alerts from Credit Karma that the defendant had submitted an inquiry to TransUnion and that her credit score had dropped 11 points. The plaintiff texted the defendant to confirm whether it had submitted her application to the credit reporting agencies, but did not get a response.
- The plaintiff subsequently received communications from a number of auto lenders, which purportedly confirmed that her application had been submitted.
- The plaintiff then mailed a pre-litigation letter to the defendant, which the defendant failed to acknowledge or respond to.
The claims: The suit accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1681b(f), 1681q, and 1681e(a) of the FCRA for obtaining a copy of the plaintiff’s credit report without a permissible purpose, as well as violating state law in Mississippi.
- The plaintiff claims the defendant’s actions denied her the ability to make informed decisions about her financial standing, invaded her privacy, caused emotional distress, reputational harm, and economic injury.
