A District Court judge in Washington has granted a motion to dismiss filed by three credit reporting agencies in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case alleging the CRAs violated the statute because there is conflicting information on his credit reports. The court ruled that pointing to differences between how the CRAs reported the same account was not enough, by itself, to plausibly allege that any of the reporting was inaccurate or materially misleading under the FCRA.
The background: The plaintiff filed suit after disputing how a vehicle financing account was being reported by multiple credit reporting agencies.
- The CRAs reported different balances, delinquency dates, charge-off dates, activity dates, and characterizations of the furnisher’s role on the account.
- The plaintiff argued that these inconsistencies proved that at least some of the reporting had to be wrong and that the CRAs failed to conduct reasonable reinvestigations when he disputed the information.
- The amended complaint also alleged that the CRAs conducted sham investigations and maintained inaccurate records, in violation of their duties under Sections 1681e(b) and 1681i of the FCRA.
The ruling: Judge David G. Estudillo of the District Court for the Western District of Washington rejected the plaintiff’s theory that inconsistencies between CRAs automatically establish an inaccuracy under the FCRA.
- The judge explained that “an inconsistent report is not necessarily an inaccurate or misleading report,” and that a consumer must identify what specific information is actually false or materially misleading.
- Judge Estudillo noted that different balances or dates could reflect different reporting periods, and without alleging which data point is wrong, the claims remain speculative. His ruling also emphasized that to state a viable FCRA claim, the alleged inaccuracy must be patently incorrect or misleading in a way that could adversely affect credit decisions.
- The court further found that conclusory allegations about misleading formats or deceptive presentation were not enough to meet pleading standards. Without factual allegations explaining why the reported information was false, and how it could adversely affect credit decisions, the claims could not proceed.
