FCRA Class Action Review – 2025

defendant’s practice of failing to conduct a reasonable investigation and/or reinvestigation into consumer disputes received; and (vi) who were also harmed by the defendant’s practice of continuing to furnish inaccurate and/or incomplete information to the credit bureaus in violation of the FCRA. Id. at *10-11. The defendant moved to strike the class allegations on the grounds that the class claims were unsupportable and prejudicial. The court denied the motion. It noted that motions to strike class allegations before discovery or certification are generally disfavored, that determining class certification suitability requires a more developed record, and that the mere existence of individualized questions did not automatically preclude class certification. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff’s proposed classes were impermissible fail-safe classes because class membership was contingent on liability. The court concluded that the current class definitions did condition membership on liability to some extent but that did not warrant striking the class allegations outright given the early stages of the litigation, where plaintiff had ample opportunity to redefine certain aspects of the class definitions to address the fail-safe problem. The defendant further argued that individual questions would predominate over common questions in both RESPA and FCRA claims such that class certification would be inappropriate. The court acknowledged that some individualized inquiry might be necessary but also noted that the existence of such questions did not automatically preclude class certification. The court opined that predominance requires a determination of whether common questions outweigh individual ones on balance, which typically requires at least some form of discovery. For these reasons, the court denied the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s class allegations because the proposed classes were not clearly deficient and could potentially be certified with modifications. In Holden, et al. v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc., 98 F.4th 1359 (11th Cir. 2024), the plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that defendant inaccurately reported their debts to Experian in violation of the FCRA. The defendant, a timeshare company whose customers pay for the right to use vacation properties and cover associated fees, sold and financed the plaintiffs’ timeshares. The purchase agreements included provisions about default and cancellation, stating that if the plaintiffs defaulted, all payments made would be retained as liquidated damages. Though the plaintiffs both defaulted and ceased making payments on the timeshares, they nevertheless asserted that the agreements were improperly terminated according to the defendant’s default provisions. The defendant reported the debts to Experian, which found the debts to be accurate and ultimately sent debt collection letters to the plaintiffs. The district court ruled that the inaccuracies were legal disputes rather than factual errors, and thus not actionable under the FCRA. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. Under the FCRA, furnishers of credit information are required to provide accurate information and to investigate disputes. However, FCRA claims must be based on inaccuracies that are objectively and readily verifiable. The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the district court that the core issue was not the factual accuracy of the reported debts but rather interpretations of the applicable contract terms and the parties’ respective legal obligations. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that such legal disputes do not meet the FCRA’s standard for actionable inaccuracies. For these reasons, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling since the plaintiffs’ claims were not actionable under the FCRA. III. Key FCRA Class Certification Rulings To secure class certification, a plaintiff must establish that a proposed class meets requirements of numerosity, typicality, commonality, and adequacy of representation in Rule 23(a). In addition, a plaintiff must show that one of three alternatives outlined in Rule 23(b) applies. While plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that the Rule 23 requirements are met, “they need not make that showing to a degree of absolute certainty. It is sufficient if each disputed requirement has been proven by a preponderance of evidence.” Messner, et al. v. Northshore University Health System , 669 F.3d 802, 811 (7th Cir. 2012). IV. Key FCRA Rulings Granting Class Certification The plaintiff in Brooks, et al. v. Trans Union LLC , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136116 (E.D. Penn. Aug. 1, 2024), filed a class action lawsuit against the defendant, claiming the company violated the FCRA by selling consumer credit reports to third-party creditors that incorrectly stated the consumers had filed for bankruptcy. The plaintiff, who had never filed for bankruptcy, alleged that the defendant provided erroneous reports that caused his credit

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