A District Court judge in Wisconsin has granted a motion to dismiss filed by three furnishers in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case involving claims they failed to investigate and correct disputed information.
The background: The case was brought by a consumer who alleged that multiple furnishers reported inaccurate, incomplete, or outdated information to the credit reporting agencies. According to the complaint, the disputed items included fields such as the date opened, balance, number of months or terms, last reported date, date last active, and date of last payment.
- The plaintiff asserted that he notified both the credit reporting agencies and the furnishers directly, but claimed the furnishers failed to properly investigate the disputes or correct the information, causing him financial harm, including the denial of a significant loan application.
- The plaintiff relied heavily on perceived inconsistencies across credit reports from different consumer reporting agencies, arguing that these discrepancies demonstrated inaccurate furnishing and unreasonable investigations under the FCRA. He also asserted claims for willful and negligent noncompliance, seeking actual and punitive damages.
The ruling: Judge William C. Griesbach of the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the complaint failed to plausibly allege violations of the FCRA by the furnishers. Central to the decision was the judge’s conclusion that the plaintiff never identified what information the furnishers themselves reported that was patently incorrect or materially misleading.
- Judge Griesbach emphasized that “threadbare recitals” and generic headings were not enough, explaining that the complaint lacked facts showing whether any alleged inaccuracies were material or how they differed from the correct information. In reviewing dispute correspondence, the court noted that many of the issues appeared to stem from how different credit reporting agencies displayed dates or balances, not from errors made by the furnishers.
- Quoting prior appellate guidance, the judge explained that a furnisher’s duty is limited to investigating and correcting its own data, not fixing how consumer reporting agencies format or display that information. The FCRA, Judge Griesbach noted, “says nothing about a credit report” and instead focuses on “the information that a furnisher provides to a consumer reporting agency.”
- The judge also dismissed claims brought under provisions that apply only to consumer reporting agencies, not furnishers, and ruled that the damages claims failed because no underlying FCRA violation was adequately pleaded.
