The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s ruling in favor of the third defendant which was sued for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act, concluding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any factual inaccuracies in her credit report or that the defendants conducted unreasonable investigations into her disputes.
The background: the plaintiff sued the three defendants — two credit reporting agencies and a student loan servicing and collection operation, in 2021. She alleged that her credit reports contained inaccurate information related to student loans and an auto loan, and that the defendants failed to correct these errors after she filed disputes. Among the claims, the plaintiff alleged that:
- One credit bureau failed to account for a $10,521.43 insurance payment made on an auto loan in 2017.
- It and the other credit bureaus reported her student loans as being in “collections” rather than “forbearance.”
- The defendants violated FCRA provisions related to reinvestigation obligations and willful noncompliance.
Her lawsuit underwent several amendments before ultimately being dismissed by the district court for failure to state a claim. She appealed the decision, citing new evidence, excusable neglect, and alleged misconduct by one of the credit bureaus.
The ruling: The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of all claims. The court noted:
- The plaintiff’s own credit report contradicted her claims. It accounted for the $10,521.43 insurance payment, showing that only $2,119 remained on the auto loan after the payout, which was contrary to her allegations that the payment was never reflected.
- Her credit report accurately displayed her student loans as being in “forbearance” with $0 payments and $0 accrued interest, undermining her assertion that they were reported as being in “collections.”
- Because the information in the credit report was not factually inaccurate, the court concluded the plaintiff failed to meet the standard required to sustain a claim under Section 1681i of the FCRA.
- Her 1681n claim for willful noncompliance also failed because no underlying FCRA violation was established.
- In short, the court determined that the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint were “plainly contradicted” by the very credit reports she included with her filings.
