A District Court judge in Pennsylvania has dismissed a Fair Credit Reporting Act lawsuit accusing a consumer reporting agency of failing to block allegedly fraudulent accounts tied to identity theft, while also sharply criticizing the plaintiff’s court filings for including fake case citations, fabricated quotations, and apparent AI-generated legal arguments.
The background: The plaintiff, proceeding without an attorney, alleged the defendant violated multiple FCRA provisions by failing to block information allegedly resulting from identity theft, failing to conduct proper reinvestigations, failing to assure maximum possible accuracy, and failing to properly note disputes on his report.
- The plaintiff submitted complaints through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s online portal disputing information tied to multiple bank accounts.
- The plaintiff’s CFPB filings allegedly included a dispute letter demanding the accounts be blocked under Section 1681c-2(a) of the FCRA, as well as an FTC identity theft report.
- The complaint alleged the defendant failed to block the disputed information within four business days and improperly verified the accuracy of certain accounts despite alleged address discrepancies.
- The plaintiff also claimed a later account application denial was tied to the disputed reporting and alleged the defendant failed to adequately explain its reinvestigation procedures.
The ruling: Judge Harvey Bartle III of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the lawsuit, finding the complaint repeatedly failed to plausibly allege facts necessary to support the FCRA claims.
- A major focus of the opinion involved the court’s finding that the plaintiff never clearly identified what information should have been blocked, what specific accounts were inaccurate, or sufficient facts showing actual identity theft.
- The judge explained the complaint largely relied on conclusory allegations that the defendant violated the FCRA without adequately pleading compliance with the statute’s identity theft blocking requirements.
- The court also found the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege inaccuracies necessary to support claims under Sections 1681e(b) and 1681i because the complaint was too vague and internally inconsistent regarding which accounts supposedly contained inaccurate information.
- Another notable aspect of the ruling involved the judge’s discussion of the plaintiff’s use of artificial intelligence in briefing. The opinion identified multiple nonexistent cases, fabricated quotations, incorrect citations, and legal arguments attributed to decisions that did not address the cited issues.
- Judge Bartle wrote that the plaintiff “undoubtedly used artificial intelligence to craft his opposition” and cautioned that future use of fictitious case law could lead to “severe sanctions.”
