A consumer’s Fair Credit Reporting Act lawsuit claiming a lender inaccurately reported a charged-off credit card account has been dismissed on summary judgment after the consumer could point to no evidence of inaccuracy beyond his own assertions.
The background: The plaintiff opened a credit card account with the defendant in January 2022 and kept it active until a string of returned payments prompted the defendant to close and eventually charge off the account.
- The account carried a balance into 2024, and several payments in 2023 were returned unpaid. The defendant closed the account and notified the plaintiff in September 2023, then charged it off in February 2024 with an outstanding balance of $530.50, reporting it to the credit reporting agencies (CRAs) as charged off with the unpaid balance reported as a loss.
- The plaintiff disputed the debt, first submitting a fraud dispute directly to the defendant in March 2024 that alleged “account take-over, fraudulent charges made on account.” The defendant reviewed the account and denied the fraud claim that May.
- The plaintiff also lodged disputes with Experian and TransUnion, alleging fraudulent charges, identity theft, inaccurate balances, and incorrect payment history. The defendant said it reviewed its records each time and verified the reported information matched.
- The plaintiff then sued, alleging the defendant furnished inaccurate information to the three major CRAs and failed to conduct a reasonable investigation under Section 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA.
The ruling: Judge Karen M. Williams of the District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff never made the threshold showing of inaccuracy that a furnisher claim demands.
- A private suit against a furnisher requires the consumer to first show the reported information was inaccurate. Absent that, Judge Williams wrote, “the inquiry stops there and ‘the reasonableness of the investigation is not in play.'”
- The only support for the fraud allegations was the plaintiff’s own statements. Contrasting a recent decision where a plaintiff’s identity-theft testimony survived because email addresses tied to the disputed loans corroborated it, the judge found no comparable corroboration in this record.
- The plaintiff’s declaration listed exhibits he said would back the fraud claim, including an FTC identity theft report, a driver’s license, and denial letters, but none were actually attached. The record held only an illegible copy of certified mail receipts and a heavily redacted credit report.
- Separately, Judge Williams struck the plaintiff’s amended complaint, which had tacked on claims under the Uniform Commercial Code, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and others, because it was filed after the deadline to amend, without leave of court, and without conferring with opposing counsel.
