A District Court judge in Illinois has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case that accused it of reporting inaccurate information, such as the date of first delinquency, to the credit reporting agencies.
The background: The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the defendant violated the FCRA by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation after disputes were submitted through the credit reporting agencies. The disputes focused on two key data points: the reported account opening date and the date of first delinquency.
- The account originated with a credit card issuer in 2019, but after the debt was transferred, the defendant reported a 2021 account opening date tied to its acquisition of the account. The plaintiff argued this created the impression of a newer debt and increased perceived credit risk.
- Additionally, the plaintiff disputed the reported date of first delinquency, asserting it should have been tied to a missed payment due date in late September 2020 rather than early October 2020.
- The plaintiff also claimed emotional distress tied to the alleged inaccuracies, including stress and lost sleep.
The ruling: Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found that the plaintiff failed to meet the threshold requirement under the FCRA of demonstrating that the reported information was inaccurate or materially misleading.
- Related to the account opening date, the judge emphasized that credit reports must be viewed in their entirety. Here, the report clearly identified the original creditor, the collection status, and the nature of the account as one held by a debt buyer. As a result, “no reasonable jury could understand” the reported opening date as referring to the original account rather than the date the defendant acquired the debt, the judge ruled.
- On the delinquency date, Judge Cummings acknowledged the disagreement but characterized it as immaterial. The difference between September 29 and October 4 amounted to a matter of days and did not meet the standard of being “materially misleading.” In fact, the judge noted that reporting a slightly later delinquency date could benefit the consumer rather than harm them.
- Critically, the court reiterated that “mere imprecision is not enough” under the FCRA. To proceed, a plaintiff must show that the information is either patently incorrect or materially misleading in a way that could affect credit decisions. Because that standard was not met, the court declined to analyze the reasonableness of the investigation or any alleged damages.
