A District Court judge in Florida has denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act related to the names of creditors listed in the plaintiff’s credit report over how accurate those names were.
The background: The plaintiff requested a copy of his credit report and alleged that the report omitted “critical” information on 33 different accounts.
- The defendant allegedly listed certain debt buyers as the original creditors, failed to include the true original creditors’ names, and truncated or omitted full account numbers, according to the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff claimed these omissions made it difficult to verify the accounts against personal records and assess the accuracy of what was being reported.
- Her lawsuit asserted violations of the FCRA’s file disclosure provision, which requires consumer reporting agencies to provide all information in a consumer’s file upon request.
The ruling: Judge Tom Barber of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida rejected three main arguments raised in the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
- First, the defendant argued the plaintiff failed to plead an inaccuracy in reporting. The judge disagreed, noting the claim was brought under the FCRA’s disclosure provision, not the accuracy provision, and therefore did not require pleading a traditional reporting inaccuracy.
- Second, the defendant argued the alleged omissions did not involve information bearing on creditworthiness. Judge Barber held that original creditor names and full account numbers are part of the consumer file and are not mere internal notes. Citing similar cases, the judge found the allegations sufficient to proceed.
- Third, the defendant argued there is no private right of action tied to Metro 2 or industry guidance. The judge agreed that there is no standalone claim under those standards, but allowed the case to move forward because the plaintiff relied on them only as support for the statutory FCRA claim.
