A District Court judge in North Carolina has dismissed a Fair Credit Reporting Act lawsuit against a wireless carrier and two credit reporting agencies, ruling that a consumer’s belief that she should not have to pay a bill does not make the reporting of that bill inaccurate, and sending the plaintiff’s remaining breach of contract claim back to small claims court where it started.
The background: The plaintiff signed up for wireless phone and home Wi-Fi service with the carrier and accepted two promotional offers, getting iPhones under a buy-one-get-one deal and two Apple Watches advertised as “free” with a line of service. The next day, she also signed up for internet service with a competing provider.
- Two months later, the plaintiff cancelled all of her service lines. Because cancelling the lines voided the promotional pricing, the carrier billed her for the full price of the devices, along with service charges and a reversed payment, for a total of $5,326.
- The plaintiff argued the carrier had touted itself as “the best wireless network” and failed to deliver the “best service,” which she said breached the customer agreement and relieved her of any obligation to pay. The carrier responded that it would “not be waiving the remaining installment balance and allowing [the plaintiff] to have free phones as [her] dispute has no merit,” and pointed to language in the agreement disclosing that service is subject to limits like signal range, terrain, buildings, and weather.
- The carrier reported the balance to two credit reporting agencies as an unpaid charge-off. Last year, the tradeline was updated to a collection account.
- The plaintiff disputed the debt with both agencies. Each reinvestigated and confirmed the reporting was accurate. She attached those results to her own complaint.
- In April, the plaintiff filed a breach of contract claim against the carrier in small claims court, then amended to add the credit reporting agencies and FCRA claims, prompting the defendants to remove the case to federal court. The plaintiff, who told the court she holds a law degree but did not allege she is a member of any bar, is subject to a prefiling review order in the district because of her history of “abusive, frivolous, malicious, manipulative, and harassing litigation.”
The ruling: Judge Kenneth D. Bell of the District Court for the Western District of North Carolina granted the plaintiff leave to file her amended complaint, then dismissed the FCRA and negligence claims after conducting the required prefiling review, writing that they “lack merit and border on frivolous.”
- Judge Bell first noted that “[a]s [the plaintiff] is well aware, there is no private right of action” for a furnisher’s alleged failure to report accurately under Section 1681s-2(a). She had tried to bring the same claim against the same two credit reporting agencies in a separate case two years ago and lost.
- Every remaining FCRA claim required the plaintiff to identify an inaccuracy in her credit file, and she had not done so. “[The plaintiff’s] belief that she should not have to pay the balance does not render the balance inaccurate,” the judge wrote.
- The plaintiff never alleged she did not sign the contract, did not receive the devices, returned them, or that the carrier forgave or settled the debt. “To the contrary, her own exhibits confirm the existence of the contract, the amount owed,” and the charged-off balance.
- With no viable FCRA violation, the negligence claim built on it failed too. The judge declined to keep the breach of contract claim and remanded it to small claims court, expressing “no view” on its merits.
- The judge also struck the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, which she had buried inside a reply brief in violation of local rules requiring motions to be filed separately.
