A District Court judge in Ohio has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case, ruling the plaintiff did not do enough to make a case that the information being reported in his credit report was inaccurate.
The background: The plaintiff alleged that a consumer reporting agency failed to follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy under Section 1681e(b) of the FCRA and failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation under Section 1681i after receiving disputes. The dispute centered on a credit card account with a balance of roughly $5,300, which the plaintiff claimed was inaccurately reported as past due.
- Over the course of several months, the plaintiff submitted three separate disputes to the defendant, each time asserting that he was not delinquent and did not owe the reported balance. He also requested documentation to support the debt, including account-level records and proof of indebtedness.
- In response, the defendant initiated reinvestigations and contacted the furnisher, which verified the accuracy of the balance and payment history and noted the account as disputed.
- The plaintiff argued that the defendant relied too heavily on the furnisher and should have conducted a more independent investigation, including obtaining additional documentation. He also claimed that the continued reporting of the account caused harm, including denial of credit and emotional distress.
The ruling: Judge Michael R. Barrett of the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio focused squarely on the requirement that a plaintiff must first establish that the reported information was inaccurate or materially misleading. Without that showing, the judge made clear, there is no need to evaluate the reasonableness of a reporting agency’s procedures.
- Judge Barrett wrote, “the threshold question under both Sections 1681e(b) and 1681i is whether the challenged credit information is accurate; if the information is accurate, no further inquiry into the reasonableness of the consumer reporting agency’s procedures is necessary.”
- The judge found that the plaintiff failed to meet this burden. While he repeatedly asserted that the information was incorrect, he did not provide supporting evidence such as payment records, account statements, or other documentation that would create a genuine dispute of material fact. The judge noted that “conclusory allegations, speculation, and unsubstantiated assertions are not evidence” and are insufficient to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment.
- Importantly, Judge Barrett also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant had to prove the information was accurate. Instead, the burden rests with the plaintiff to demonstrate inaccuracy as part of his case.
