FCRA Class Action Review – 2025

II. Key FCRA Rulings Over Provision Of Allegedly Inaccurate Or Incomplete Reports A majority of the FCRA class action cases in 2024 involved allegedly inaccurate and/or incomplete information on consumer reports and a CRA’s failure to correct the disputed information. While individual, one-off mistakes may be unavoidable, systemic issues in a reporting system provide the plaintiff ’ s class action bar with ample evidence to argue that class certification is proper, especially given the stringent requirements in the applicable statutory schemes. Specifically, the FCRA demands CRAs “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). While the term “accuracy” is not defined in the statute, it has long been understood to encompass “both truth and completeness – a report that is misleading or materially incomplete is inaccurate.” Chaitoff , 79 F.4th at 809. Once a plaintiff establishes a threshold showing that the information on a consumer report was inaccurate or misleading, the FCRA provides a separate cause of action for negligent violations and willful violations. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a) & § 1681o(a). To recover for a negligent violation of § 1681e(b), a plaintiff must prove that: “(a) the CRA failed to follow reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of its consumer reports, and (b) he or she suffered an injury caused by this negligence.” In Re Equifax Fair Credit Reporting Act Litigation , 2023 WL 6192732, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 11, 2023). To establish and recover on a willful violation, “the consumer must additionally ‘ prove that a consumer reporting agency either knowingly or recklessly violated the requirements of the [FCRA].” Id. A consumer is entitled to dispute any portion of their consumer report they believe to be inaccurate or incomplete. When the CRA is notified of a consumer dispute, the FCRA directs the CRA to “conduct a ‘ reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate,’ considering ‘ all relevant information submitted by the consumer. ’ ” Id. (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681i(a)(1)(A), (a)(4)). Section 1681i of the FRCA requires the CRA to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation only if a consumer disputes “the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer ’ s file.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1681i. If the reinvestigation by a CRA fails to resolve the dispute, a consumer is permitted to “file a brief statement setting forth the nature of the dispute.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(b). Once a consumer files a brief statement with the CRA, the CRA must clearly note on any subsequent report that the information “is disputed by the consumer and provide either the consumer ’ s statement or a clear and accurate codification or summary thereof.” Id. If the CRA fails to do so, it may be liable for violating the FCRA. Importantly, however, “[a] CRA ’ s liability under both § 1681e(b) and § 1681i(a) depends on inaccurate information – if the credit report is accurate, the consumer has suffered no damages.” Chaitoff , 79 F.4th at 811. Thus, the touchstones of whether a report is duly “accurate” and/or “complete” have proven to be of central concern in recent years, and 2024 was of no exception. When the CRA furnishes a background report for employment purposes that includes “matters of public record [that] are likely to have an adverse effect upon a consumer ’ s ability to obtain employment,” the CRA must “maintain strict procedures designed to insure that whenever public record information which is likely to have an adverse effect on a consumer ’ s ability to obtain employment is reported it is complete and up to date.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1681k(a). For example, the plaintiff in Hernandez, et al. v. Newrez, LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40745 (E.D. Penn. Mar. 8, 2024), filed a class action alleging that the defendant violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and the FCRA by mishandling home-mortgage payments, which resulted in negligent credit reporting and improper fees. The plaintiff’s proposed class for the FCRA claims consisted of “all loan borrowers in the United States during the applicable statute of limitations period: (i) who have or had mortgage loans secured by residential real property obtained for personal, family, or household use; (ii) whose mortgage loans are serviced by the defendant; (iii) whose payments were inaccurately identified by the defendant as past due 30 or more days; (iv) which such delinquency was furnished to the credit bureaus; (v) who were harmed, within the statutory limits prescribed by 15 U.S.C. § 1681p of the FCRA, due to the

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online