/>iLast week, U.S. District Judge Joshua D. Wolson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied summary judgment motions filed by both the plaintiff and the defendant Consumer Reporting Agency (“CRA”) in a fair credit dispute under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The plaintiff filed his complaint after the CRA incorrectly reported him as deceased to a creditor that plaintiff had applied for a credit card with, which resulted in the plaintiff’s application being denied.
The FCRA is a federal law that regulates the collection, use, and sharing of consumer credit information. It aims to ensure accuracy, fairness, and privacy by consumer reporting agencies. The FCRA grants consumers various rights and imposes strict penalties for failures to comply.
In Breitenbach v. SageStream, the plaintiff sought to open a credit card with Synchrony Bank to take advantage of a 0% interest credit card offer. Synchrony Bank provided plaintiff’s basic background information to the CRA. The CRA provides consumer reports and scores to help businesses decide whether to offer credit to customers. An unfortunate typo in the plaintiff’s information led the CRA to pull up the profile of a deceased individual with a nearly identical Social Security number. Synchrony Bank ultimately denied the plaintiff’s application. The CRA argued the mistake was reasonable and even supported by some evidence. The plaintiff, meanwhile, alleged the CRA failed to investigate and properly verify the information prior to reporting to the creditor that the plaintiff was deceased.
The plaintiff then sued the CRA, claiming it was liable for negligent and willful violation of Section 1681e(b) of the FCRA. In cross-motions for summary judgment, the CRA argued it was reasonable to run the personal identifying information provided against the death master file and accurately report when the information provided matches a deceased record. The plaintiff relied on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s 2010 ruling in Cortez v.TransUnion, which held that a credit agency willfully violates the FCRA when it ignores key differences in personal identifying information from a third party and produces an inaccurate credit report.
Judge Wolson denied both motions, concluding plaintiff had produced enough evidence that a jury could infer that the CRA failed to follow reasonable procedures, noting there was evidence in the record that the CRA had information to know that the Social Security number did not belong to the plaintiff.
Banking is a heavily regulated industry, and this litigation is a reminder that even small mistakes can have costly consequences. It is imperative to have an experienced attorney guide you through the best practices and procedures.
