A District Court judge in Ohio has denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act in a he-said, she-said case over whether the defendant mailed a copy of the plaintiff’s consumer file after she requested it. The decision is notable for how it handles a recurring operational question for consumer reporting agencies and furnishers alike: is proof of mailing enough to satisfy FCRA disclosure obligations, even if the consumer says they never received anything? The court said yes on the legal question. But on the facts, it said it is simply too early to decide.
The background: The plaintiff alleged that she submitted a valid written request for her consumer file under Section 1681g of the FCRA and did not receive a response within the required timeframe. According to the complaint, more than 40 days had passed without any disclosure being provided, leading her to file suit and claim both negligent and willful violations of the FCRA.
- The defendant did not dispute receiving the request. Instead, it argued that it complied with the law by mailing the disclosure to the address provided. To support that position, it submitted an affidavit from an employee stating that the file disclosure was sent on two weeks after the plaintiff mailed it, along with documentation showing portions of the disclosure itself.
- The defendant also emphasized that it was unaware of any issue until the lawsuit was filed, at which point it emailed the disclosure to the plaintiff.
- The case ultimately boiled down to a factual dispute: the defendant says it mailed the disclosure, while the plaintiff maintains she never received it.
The ruling: Judge Douglas R. Cole of the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio agreed with the defendant on a key legal point that will matter to compliance teams. It held that mailing a disclosure can satisfy the FCRA’s requirement to “disclose” information, even if the consumer does not actually receive it.
- In reaching that conclusion, the judge focused on statutory interpretation and the broader structure of the FCRA. He noted that the statute contemplates disclosures being provided “in writing,” and that mail is the “paradigmatic method” for delivering written communications.
- Judge Cole also signaled skepticism about imposing liability for events outside a company’s control, stating that it is “vanishingly unlikely that Congress imposed liability for acts that extend beyond a given CRA’s control.”
- But despite siding with the defendant on the legal framework, the court denied the motion because of a factual gap that matters operationally. Specifically, there is still a genuine dispute over whether the disclosure was actually mailed at all.
- Rather than dismiss the case, the court allowed limited discovery focused narrowly on that issue. The plaintiff will be permitted to explore mailing practices, internal procedures, and evidence of whether this specific disclosure was sent.
