A District Court judge in Michigan has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case, that accused the defendant of publishing inaccurate information about the plaintiff and failing to reinvestigate disputed information.
The background: The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the defendant, a consumer reporting agency, included inaccurate and materially misleading information in her credit reports, including accounts showing late payments and one account she claimed she did not recognize. After disputing the information, the plaintiff argued that the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation and instead relied on the same sources that originally provided the data.
- The dispute process occurred twice. In both instances, the defendant sent Automated Consumer Dispute Verification forms to the data furnishers associated with the disputed accounts. Each furnisher verified the information as accurate. The defendant then communicated those results back to the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff claimed the continued reporting of this information harmed her creditworthiness, pointing to a denied credit application and emotional distress as evidence of damages.
The ruling: Judge Robert J. White of the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan first addressed standing and found that the plaintiff had met the threshold requirement. Evidence of a denied credit application and documentation of emotional distress, including therapy, were sufficient to establish a concrete injury at this stage of the case.
- However, the judge drew a sharp distinction between standing and the ability to prevail on the merits.
- On the accuracy claim, Judge White emphasized that inaccuracy is a threshold requirement. Without evidence that the reported information was actually incorrect or materially misleading, the claim cannot proceed. The judge noted that the plaintiff relied primarily on her own assertions and dispute letters, without providing supporting documentation such as payment records, bank statements, or other evidence contradicting the furnishers’ data.
- On the reinvestigation claim, the same issue proved fatal. Because a showing of inaccuracy is required under Section 1681i of the FCRA, the absence of such evidence meant the claim could not survive. The judge also found that the defendant’s process of sending ACDVs and relying on furnishers’ responses was reasonable under the circumstances, particularly where the plaintiff provided no additional documentation to trigger a deeper investigation.
- The judge also denied the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions related to the disclosure of personal information, noting that the issue was promptly corrected and did not warrant sanctions.
