Paul v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68292 (D. Minn. June 22, 2011)

Facts: Plaintiff opened numerous accounts with U.S. Bancorp in January 2007. In early 2008, Plaintiff decided she had too many debit and credit cards and went to a bank branch location to pay the outstanding balances and close many of the accounts. The bank representative informed Plaintiff she was current on her accounts and that they were closed. However, the bank representative missed one credit account that still had a balance.

In April 2008, Plaintiff noticed the account had derogatory reporting history after reviewing an Experian consumer report. She contacted the bank and was given a letter from the bank stating the derogatory reporting was the result of bank error, and it should be removed. Plaintiff forwarded this letter to Experian and disputed the account. Experian did not rely on the letter because it could not authenticate it but instead sent a dispute verification to the bank which included a summary of the letter. In response to Experian's reinvestigation, the bank verified that the late payments were accurate.

As a result, Plaintiff sued Experian under the FCRA for failing to employ reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in Plaintiff's consumer reports and for failing to conduct a reasonable investigation and remove the inaccurate information from her credit file. Experian moved for summary judgment all claims, and Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment with respect to liability. The Court granted summary judgment for Experian on all claims.

  • Reasonable Procedures. The Court found that Plaintiff could not meet her prima facie burden to show that Experian failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy. Experian responded to Plaintiff's dispute by notifying the bank and describing the contents of the letter from the bank that Plaintiff included with her dispute. The Court rejected Plaintiff's claim that the letter itself should have been sent because such procedure would have led to greater accuracy.
  • Inaccuracy. Plaintiff must first show that there was an inaccuracy on her file with respect to her § 1681e(b) and § 1681i claims. The Court concluded that it did not matter whether it was Plaintiff's fault or the bank's fault that the payments were late because the FCRA concerns accuracy. In other words, the reason for the late payments is irrelevant. The Court also rejected Plaintiff's claim that the information reported was so misleading as to be inaccurate.
  • Reinvestigation. The Court agreed with other courts in that the "furnisher of credit information stands in a far better position to make a thorough investigation of a disputed debt than the CRA does on reinvestigation. With respect to the accuracy of disputed information, the CRA is a third party, lacking any direct relationship to the consumer ...."
  • Reinvestigation. No language in the FCRA requires a CRA to forward documents it receives in a consumer's dispute to data furnishers in order to satisfy its obligation to include all relevant information regarding the dispute. In this case, Experian accurately summarized the letter in its dispute verification sent to the bank.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.