A District Court judge in Florida has denied a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case over the information that was included, and not included, on the plaintiff’s credit report, finding that the plaintiff plausibly alleged the credit reporting agency failed to disclose all information contained in her file as required by federal law.
The background: The plaintiff requested a copy of her credit report and received an electronic consumer disclosure. The report listed two accounts categorized as “other” and identified a debt buyer as the original creditor, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff alleged that this was misleading because the entity did not originate the underlying credit. She also claimed that the report omitted full account numbers for those accounts, as well as for numerous other revolving and installment accounts.
- Based on those alleged omissions, the plaintiff sued under Section 1681g of the FCRA, which requires consumer reporting agencies to clearly and accurately disclose all information in a consumer’s file upon request.
- The defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the plaintiff failed to allege any inaccuracy and that the missing information did not bear on creditworthiness.
The ruling: Judge Beth Bloom of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida rejected both of the defendant’s arguments.
- First, she emphasized that an FCRA disclosure claim under Section 1681g does not require a showing of inaccurate reporting. The judge explained that the disclosure duty “is distinct from claims alleging inaccurate reporting under other FCRA provisions,” and focuses on whether all information in the consumer’s file was disclosed.
- Second, Judge Bloom found that missing full account numbers and original creditor information could fall within the scope of a consumer’s “file,” even if the defendant argued the omissions did not affect creditworthiness. Quoting prior case law, she noted that a primary purpose of Section 1681g is to allow consumers to identify and dispute potential inaccuracies.
- The judge also rejected the argument that the claim improperly relied on Metro 2 or industry guidelines, concluding the plaintiff’s allegations were grounded squarely in the statutory disclosure obligation itself.
