The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has affirmed a ruling in favor of a creditor that was sued for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act after it denied the plaintiff an application for credit it had previously prescreened him for. What makes the case extra interesting is that the plaintiff apparently cited fictional cases in his arguments, perhaps relying on artificial intelligence tools that led him astray.
The background: The plaintiff filed suit after receiving a prescreened credit offer, applying for credit, and then being denied. He alleged that the defendant relied on inaccurate or improper credit information when making the denial and claimed the adverse decision caused harm to his credit standing and emotional distress.
- The lawsuit asserted violations of the FCRA and related theories tied to how consumer report information was used in the credit decisioning process.
- Over the course of the litigation, the trial court dismissed the claims, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to state a viable FCRA claim and that further amendments would be futile.
- The plaintiff continued to challenge the dismissal through post judgment motions and appeals.
The ruling: The Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, agreeing that the plaintiff did not allege facts sufficient to establish a violation of the FCRA in connection with the prescreened offer or subsequent denial of credit, while noting that the arguments put forth by the plaintiff were “founded on apparently fabricated authorities.”
- The court also addressed the plaintiff’s continued challenges to the dismissal, noting that several arguments were not supported by valid legal authority.
- In its opinion, the court stated that some of the cases cited by the plaintiff did not exist or did not contain the propositions attributed to them, and that arguments must be supported by real and relevant authority.
- The appellate court further agreed with the lower court that the plaintiff’s repeated attempts to relitigate previously resolved issues were improper and that the denial of post judgment relief was appropriate.
