Invoking recent caselaw from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, a District Court judge in New Jersey has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act for not conducting a reasonable investigation after being notified by the plaintiff of alleged inaccuracies on her credit report. The ruling reinforces a growing line of cases across the circuit that require consumers to plead more than generalized complaints about “inaccurate” information to proceed under the FCRA.
The background: The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, claimed she mailed a dispute notice to the defendant after identifying what she described as inaccurate entries related to several tradelines on her consumer credit report.
- She alleged the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, failed to communicate with her about the dispute, and failed to update her report.
- She further asserted that the allegedly inaccurate report resulted in multiple credit denials and caused emotional distress.
- The complaint asserted violations of both section 1681e(b), which governs reasonable procedures for accuracy, and section 1681i(a), which governs reinvestigations after a consumer dispute.
- But as the judge noted, the complaint’s descriptions of the supposed inaccuracies stopped at listing categories such as past-due amount, balance, terms, and status. It did not explain how or why those fields were wrong or what the information should have reflected instead.
The ruling: Applying recent Third Circuit guidance in Williams v. Experian and Anigbogu v. Midland Credit Management, Judge Renee Marie Bumb of the District Court for the District of New Jersey held that conclusory assertions of inaccuracy do not meet the pleading standard under the FCRA. The judge explained that both sections 1681e(b) and 1681i(a) require a plaintiff to plausibly allege an actual factual inaccuracy, and that “general allegations of inaccurate information in a consumer credit report are not sufficient to state a plausible violation of the FCRA.”
- Quoting the Third Circuit, the judge highlighted that a plaintiff must do more than allege a tradeline “represented a balance and a late payment” without explaining what made it wrong.
- Judge Bumb found the plaintiff’s allegations to be “too spare” and “not enough” to move forward, noting that even the exhibits attached to the complaint failed to clarify the nature of the inaccuracies.
