Insights / articlesInsights
Insights / articles

Alert

FCRA Claims Against Credit Reporting Agencies: NY Court Emphasizes Minimal Pleading Requirements

Read Time: 2 mins

On June 6, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed claims for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)—15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e(b) and 1681i in particular—against a credit reporting agency where plaintiff “has not adequately pleaded an inaccuracy because she fails to specify what information in her credit report was incorrect and why” and has not alleged facts regarding the credit reporting agency’s procedures to ensure the accuracy of its reports or to investigate disputed information.[1]

Case Background

In Rogers, the pro se plaintiff brought claims against Equifax Information Services LLC (Equifax) for violations of the FCRA, alleging that Equifax failed to maintain accurate information for the plaintiff’s credit report and to correct the inaccurate information upon investigating the plaintiff’s evidence of inaccuracy. Equifax moved to dismiss.

Court’s Reasoning for FCRA Dismissal

The court granted Equifax’s motion after concluding that “[p]laintiff fails to adequately allege that Equifax violated Section 1681e(b) or 1681i” as she “makes only conclusory allegations that Equifax reported ‘inaccurate information’ and ‘did not delete names, addresses, and other contact information that were inaccurate.” Meanwhile, claims under such provisions of the FCRA require a plaintiff to “plausibly allege (among other things) that (i) her credit report contained disputed information that is inaccurate, and (ii) the defendant failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of a report, or to reinvestigate.”

Additionally, the court in Rogers found that since “Sections 1681e(b) and 1681i do not impose strict liability for inaccuracies, the failure to allege what steps Equifax took or failed to take pertaining to the accuracy of its reports is an independent basis to dismiss plaintiff’s FCRA claims.”

Besides, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s related common law causes of action for defamation of character and “assumption of duty” as preempted by the FCRA, as well as determined that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for violations of the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act (NYFCRA), N.Y.G.B.L. §§ 380-j(a), 380-h(a), and 380-h(b), as NYFCRA does not require a consumer reporting agency to supply a copy of investigative reports to a consumer upon her request.

Implications of the Rogers Decision on FCRA Claims

The Rogers decision confirms that FCRA claims against credit reporting agencies require consumers—as a threshold matter—to sufficiently identify in the complaint the inaccurate information appearing on their credit report, to explain why it is inaccurate, as well as to include factual allegations regarding the steps undertaken by a credit reporting agency to assure the accuracy of its data or to investigate reporting disputes.  Otherwise, such claims are facially dismissible as a matter of law.  

[1] Rogers v. Equifax Info. Services LLC, 23-CV-0537 (RPK) (TAM), 2024 WL 2862363 (E.D.N.Y. June 6, 2024).

Subscribe for Updates

Receive emails regarding timely legal developments and events in your areas of interest.

subscribe >

Insights

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.

Alert

District Court Dismisses FDCPA and FCRA Action Against Community College

January 2, 2025

On December 11, 2024, the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Arizona dismissed a pro se litigant’s claims against Montgomery Community College (the College) for, inter alia, alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, and the Fair Debt Collections Practice Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692. The court ruled that the pro se plaintiff had failed to state plausible claims for relief under both the FCRA and FDCPA and dismissed the FDCPA claim with prejudice and the FCRA claim without prejudice.

Alert

Standing Requirements Under FCRA Clarified by Second Circuit

December 17, 2024

On December 6, 2024, federal courts in the United States Second Circuit issued a pair of decisions clarifying that borrowers must identify a concrete injury caused by the dissemination of inaccurate information to establish standing to assert claims for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Alert

Court Rejects Conclusory Allegations of Willful Violations for FCRA Claims

December 5, 2024

A United States Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia found that Plaintiff’s claim arising under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) was not sufficiently alleged but stopped short of recommending a Defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted. Instead, it was recommended that the pro se plaintiff be directed to file an amended complaint describing in greater detail how the defendant acted willfully when accessing the Plaintiff’s consumer report.

Alert

FCRA Claims Survive Dismissal Over Challenges to Standing and Statute of Limitations

December 4, 2024

A recent opinion from a federal court in North Carolina emphasizes how difficult it is to succeed on a motion to dismiss a lawsuit arising under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Rejecting a challenge to a plaintiff’s standing and the timeliness of the FCRA claims, the court denied the motion to dismiss and reminded the parties about their mediation obligations.

Alert

FCRA Claims Fail as Mortgagor Could Not Satisfy His Repayment Obligations by Tendering Another Promise to Pay

October 16, 2024

On September 19, 2024, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed claims against the mortgage lender, its mortgage servicer, and credit reporting agencies under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., New York Uniform Commercial Code § 9-210 et seq., and common law defamation for lack of standing because plaintiff’s self-inflicted injury was a result of his personal choices rather than defendant’s conduct.

Alert

4th Circuit Holds Rental Applicant Lacks Standing to Bring FCRA Claims Over Inaccurate OFAC Reporting

October 1, 2024

On September 11, 2024, the 4th Circuit held that a named plaintiff in a putative class action failed to establish a concrete injury that could satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing against consumer reporting agency, RentGrow, Inc. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant inaccurately reported on rental applications that Plaintiffs were on the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s (OFAC) list of individuals who threaten America’s national security. However, the 4th Circuit held that Plaintiff had no Article III standing when the undisputed evidence suggested that the inaccurate OFAC reports were never reviewed by a third party, and therefore, no concrete injury could be established.

Alert

Eighth Circuit Upholds Sanctions Against Defendant in FCRA Lawsuit for Demanding “Too Much” in Discovery

September 25, 2024

Recently, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a discovery ruling, including an award of $93,243.50 in attorneys’ fees, against a defendant in a lawsuit arising under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The court found that the defendant “crossed the line when it demanded mostly irrelevant information” from the consumer’s law firm.

Alert

FCRA Action Dismissed for Lack of Standing and Failure to State a Claim

August 22, 2024

In July 2024, the United States Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed a pro se litigant’s claims against Experian Information Services LLC (Experian), TransUnion LLC (TransUnion), and Equifax Information Solutions, Inc. (Equifax) (collectively, Credit Reporting Agencies) for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.

Alert

Litigation Byte (June Edition)

June 27, 2024

The Litigation Byte is the new name and format for McGlinchey's Commercial Law Bulletin. Our new format reflects McGlinchey’s national coverage and our expanded footprint while still serving up the digestible, insightful bites readers have come to expect, with timely coverage of financial services decisions and cases that impact you and your business.

Alert

New York Northern District Court Reminds That Only a “Called Party” May Bring a TCPA Claim

June 27, 2024

On June 10, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York reiterated that a claim for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) cannot be maintained by a consumer who is neither a subscriber of the called telephone number that is billed for the call nor a non-subscriber customary user of the called telephone number which is included in a family or business cellular plan.

Alert

New York’s Interest-On-Escrow Law May Not Be Preempted by the National Bank Act

June 27, 2024

On May 30, 2024, the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit and found that the National Bank Act (NBA) does not preempt New York General Obligation Law § 5–601, which mandates banks to pay borrowers the interest accumulated on a balance held in an escrow account for residential mortgages on certain types of properties.

Alert

TILA Disclosure Requirements Limited by New York District Court

June 18, 2024

On June 5, 2024, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision adopting in its entirety the May 13, 2024 Report and Recommendation regarding the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The court held that under TILA, a creditor in an open-end consumer credit plan has no obligation to notify or disclose to consumers information that the creditor has or intends to verify with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding the consumer’s taxes or income in the course of servicing the consumer’s debt.

Alert

NY District Court: Legal Fees Are Sufficient for Standing in FDCPA Claims

May 30, 2024

n May 20, 2024, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision holding that legal fees resulting from violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) constitute a cognizable monetary harm for the purpose of establishing constitutional standing.

Alert

NJ District Court Underscores Limits of “Safe Harbor” Protection Under Regulation F

May 17, 2024

On May 7, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a decision holding that the use by a debt collector of the Model Form validation notice under Regulation F does not guarantee compliance with the requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g or other sections of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).[1] Consequently, the court joined “several other district courts in finding that compliance with Regulation F and the CFPB's Model Form in and of itself does not provide a ‘safe harbor’ from all alleged violations of the FDCPA.”