A District Court judge in Ohio has denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to include the complete account numbers associated with items in the plaintiff’s credit report, going into detail over what constitutes a consumer”s “file.”
The background: The plaintiff requested a copy of her credit report and noticed that some of the entries did not have complete account numbers. She filed suit under the FCRA, which requires consumer reporting agencies to clearly and accurately disclose all information in a consumer’s file upon request.
- The defendant provided disclosures that included only truncated versions of account numbers for multiple tradelines, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff alleged that this practice made it impossible to identify specific accounts, confirm accuracy, or determine whether fraudulent or inaccurate information was being reported.
- The plaintiff further claimed that the disclosures were generated through an automated, template-driven system that routinely omits key data fields. As a result, she alleged confusion, frustration, and anxiety about what information may have been shared with creditors or other third parties.
The ruling: In denying the motion to dismiss, Judge Douglas R. Cole of the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio focused on the meaning of the term “file” as used in Section 1681g of the FCRA. While Judge Cole agreed that a consumer’s file does not necessarily include every piece of information a reporting agency maintains internally, he rejected the argument that disclosure obligations are limited only to information bearing directly on creditworthiness.
- Relying on appellate authority, the judge explained that a consumer’s file includes information that has been furnished, or may be furnished, in a consumer report to third parties. Judge Cole emphasized that whether certain data qualifies depends on how it is actually used, not merely how it is characterized.
- Judge Cole noted that the plaintiff specifically alleged that full account numbers are provided to third parties in consumer reports. If that allegation proves untrue, the court suggested, the defendant may ultimately prevail at summary judgment. But at the motion to dismiss stage, the claim was sufficiently plausible to move forward.
