Alert

EDNY: Failure to State a Claim Under the FCRA Dooms a Related Claim under the NYFCRA

January 2, 2025

On December 16, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed claims against a credit reporting agency for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and joined the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in holding that the insufficiency of a claim under the FCRA requires dismissal of a related claim under the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act (NYFCRA), whose prohibition on reporting of inaccurate information is “substantially similar” to the FCRA.[1]

Background

In Rogers, pro se plaintiff sought deletion of two accounts from her credit report due to alleged billing errors, which rendered it misleading and inaccurate. Defendant did not remove such accounts despite plaintiff sending a series of letters, instead advising plaintiff the accounts were verified. Plaintiff commenced an action, alleging that defendant did not conduct a proper investigation and that she missed credit opportunities due to misleading, inaccurate information on her credit report. Defendant successfully moved to dismiss, but the court granted plaintiff leave to amend. As such, plaintiff interposed an amended complaint with causes of action for violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 1681o and the NYFCRA, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380, prompting another motion to dismiss.    

Court’s Analysis

In dismissing the FCRA claims, the court found that plaintiff failed to adequately allege any reported inaccuracy because she does not specify what information was inaccurate and why, as well as that the amended complaint is devoid of factual allegations regarding defendant’s procedures to ensure the accuracy of its reports or to reinvestigate any disputed information. 

Additionally, the court held that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible NYFCRA claim, “[b]ecause the language of the NYFCRA and the FCRA is substantially similar [, and] the Court’s conclusions regarding the FCRA also dispose of plaintiff’s NYFCRA claim.” The Rogers court relied upon a decision out of the Southern District of New York, indicating that this is a novel approach in this jurisdiction. As with the FCRA claims, plaintiff failed to allege any inaccuracies on her credit reports.   

Key Takeaway

Rogers reminds us that the sufficiency of a claim analysis for causes of action under federal consumer protection laws can be dispositive of related state law claims when the state law is closely modeled thereon and contains similarly prohibitive prescriptions. 

[1] Rogers v. Trans Union LLC, 23-CV-536 (RPK) (TAM), 2024 WL 5120013 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2024).