Case: 24-40415 Document: 73-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2025
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 24-40415
____________ FILED
June 13, 2025
Mary Reyes, Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Equifax Information Services, L.L.C.,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CV-639
______________________________
Before Elrod, Chief Judge, and Clement and Ramirez, Circuit
Judges.
Irma Carrillo Ramirez, Circuit Judge:
Mary Reyes sued Equifax Information Services, L.L.C., alleging that
it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by continuing to report a
delinquent Citibank credit card account in her consumer file after she
disputed the underlying charges as fraudulent. The district court granted
summary judgment in favor of Equifax and dismissed all her claims. We
affirm.
Case: 24-40415 Document: 73-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2025
No. 24-40415
I
A
On August 18, 2019, at approximately 3:30 a.m., Reyes received text
messages flagging suspicious charges on her Citibank credit card account.
That same day, she called Citibank, which immediately canceled her credit
card and issued her a new card with a new account number. All charges that
had been made on the canceled credit card were transferred to her new
Citibank account. After reviewing the transaction history, she identified
multiple unauthorized charges totaling more than $2,500 that had been made
at different locations throughout the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex over
several days prior to her call to Citibank. Reyes believed that her credit card
had been “skimmed” 1 because she still had the card in her possession. She
later filed police reports about the fraudulent charges.
Over the next few weeks, Reyes contacted Citibank to dispute the
allegedly fraudulent charges, but Citibank contended they were valid. In
September 2019, Reyes sent Citibank a letter requesting, among other things,
reconsideration of her fraud claim. She also filed a complaint with the
Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB).
_____________________
1
“Skimming occurs when devices illegally installed on or inside ATMs, point-ofsale (POS) terminals, or fuel pumps capture card data and record cardholders’ PIN entries.
Criminals use the data to create fake payment cards and then make unauthorized purchases
or steal from victims’ accounts.” FBI, Common Frauds and Scams,
https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/scams-and-safety/common-frauds-andscams/skimming (last visited June 13, 2025).
2
Case: 24-40415 Document: 73-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/13/2025
No. 24-40415
After October 2019, Reyes stopped making payments on the new
Citibank account, maintaining that the outstanding charges were fraudulent.
At some point, Citibank charged off the account and reported the unpaid
balance of over $3,200 (including fees and accrued interest) to all three major
credit reporting agencies, including Equifax.
On April 15, 2020, Reyes’s attorney mailed Equifax a letter that states,
in its entirety:
My client, Mary Reyes wishes to dispute the following item:
Citibank Advantage Mastercard [old account number], with an
approximate balance of $3122.
Upon information and belief, Client is a victim of Identity
Theft. These are not her charges! Nor are they those of her
husband Juan. Ms. Reyes has made multiple attempts to
resolve this issue with no help from Citibank. See the attached
documentation: Ms (sic) Reyes has filed police [reports] with
The Fort Worth Police Department, The Dallas Police
Department, and The Frisco Police Department. She has also
made a complaint with the Consumer Finance Protection
Bureau, as well as generated a Federal Trade Commission
Identity Theft Affidavit. By law she has done more than enough
to get this inaccurate tradeline corrected or deleted.
On behalf of my client, I demand an immediate correction or
atleast (sic) a deletion of this account.
Pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Please (sic) forward
this dispute to the credit furnishers. If you are not going to
forward them, please inform me so I may do so myself.
Even though Reyes’s unpaid balance from the alleged fraud carried over to
the new Citibank account and had been reported on her Equifax credit file as
a “valid portion of [her] account balance,” the dispute letter identified a
3
Case: 24-40415 Document: 73-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/13/2025
No. 24-40415
Citibank account number no longer in existence and that did not appear in
her file.
On April 29, 2020, Equifax responded to Reyes by letter, explaining
that the disputed item, her old “Citi Advantage Mastercard Account,” was
not reported in her Equifax credit file at the time.
On May 1, 2020, Equifax received a fraud referral from another credit
reporting agency regarding Reyes’s new Citibank account number. The next
day, Equifax forwarded the dispute to Citibank through its Automated
Consumer Dispute Verification (ACDV) system, and requested that it
investigate the fraud allegation. Citibank confirmed that the information
reported concerning the new account was accurate.
On June 18, 2020, Citibank sent Reyes a letter regarding her CFPB
complaint, stating:
We respectfully decline your request to issue credit for the
$2,535.72 in fraud charges billed on your prior account . . . that
you identified as unauthorized. Our records reflect the
transactions were processed using the embedded chip, which
cannot be duplicated. Because valid purchases were made
before the disputed charges using the same Chip card, which
you confirmed was in your possession, we consider the
transactions to be a valid portion of your account balance.
Because you disagree with the resolution of your claim, we
previously requested the reporting agencies add a note to your
credit profile stating that the information is “disputed by the
consumer”. Should you wish to have the “disputed by the
4
Case: 24-40415 Document: 73-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/13/2025
No. 24-40415
consumer” note removed from your credit profile, it will be
necessary for you to contact us at the address listed above. 2
On July 6, 2020, Reyes’s attorney sent Equifax a second dispute letter,
which continued to request the deletion of the old Citibank account. Equifax
again responded to the letter, explaining the old account was not showing in
her credit file.
On July 18, 2020, Equifax received another fraud referral from the
same credit reporting agency about the new Citibank account. Equifax sent
an ACDV request to Citibank, which again confirmed that the reported
account information was accurate.
In August 2020, Reyes’s application for a home improvement loan
was denied. Reyes’s Equifax credit report, which the lender considered in its
decision, identified the following negative credit factors: (1) serious
delinquency; (2) time since delinquency is too recent or unknown; (3)
amount owed on delinquent accounts; and (4) number of accounts with
delinquency.
Reyes’s attorney sent Equifax a third dispute letter on October 5,
2020. The letter again only referenced the old Citibank account, but Equifax
sent Citibank an ACDV request to verify information on the new account,
and included the dispute letter. Citibank later verified that the information
Equifax reported on the new account was accurate.
_____________________
2
Citibank sent a substantially similar letter to Reyes on March 11, 2022.
5
Case: 24-40415 Document: 73-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/13/2025
No. 24-40415
On October 21, 2020, Equifax sent Reyes a letter explaining it had
researched the new Citibank account and “verified that this item belongs to
you.” It also provided the account information reported in her file: the new
Citibank account was a charged-off account with an outstanding balance of
$3,312, the last payment was made in October 2019, and the account was
closed at the consumer’s request. 3
B
Reyes sued Equifax alleging it negligently and willfully violated 15
U.S.C. § 1681e by failing to follow reasonable procedures in reporting
information, as well as § 1681i by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation
of her dispute. Equifax moved for summary judgment, arguing Reyes had
failed to present evidence showing that (1) the information it reported was
inaccurate, (2) it failed to follow reasonable procedures or conduct a
reasonable reinvestigation of her disputes, and (3) it caused her any damages.
Equifax also argued that her FCRA suit was an impermissible collateral
attack involving a legal dispute between her and Citibank.
A magistrate judge recommended that the FCRA claims be dismissed
because § 1681e and § 1681i both require a threshold showing that the credit
entry in question was inaccurate, and there was no fact issue as to whether
the Citibank account information reported by Equifax was inaccurate. The
magistrate judge found that even if Reyes had demonstrated a fact issue as to
_____________________
3
The letter, which was an exhibit to Reyes’s summary judgment response, also
noted that the account’s credit history was modified but that information was redacted.
6
Case: 24-40415 Document: 73-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/13/2025
No. 24-40415
the reported information’s accuracy, summary judgment was warranted
because her claims amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on the
validity of her debt with Citibank.
The district judge adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation
over Reyes’s objections and granted Equifax’s motion for summary
judgment. The district court agreed that Reyes could not prevail on her
FCRA claims because she failed to provide evidence that Equifax’s
consumer file contained factually inaccurate information and because she
could not collaterally attack her Citibank debt by suing Equifax.
Reyes appeals the district court’s dismissal of her § 1681i
reinvestigation claim. 4
II
We review a summary judgment dismissal de novo, under the same
standards used in the district court. See Hernandez v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 670
F.3d 644, 650 (5th Cir. 2012). Summary judgment is proper “if the movant
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A
genuine dispute as to a material fact exists when, after considering the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and
_____________________
4
Reyes does not challenge the district court’s judgment on her § 1681e(b) claim in
her brief, so she has abandoned that claim. See Reagan Nat’l Advert. Of Austin, Inc. v. City
of Austin, 64 F.4th 287, 291 (5th Cir. 2023) (“Ordinarily, ‘[a]n appellant abandons all issues
not raised and argued in its initial brief on appeal.’”) (quoting Cinel v. Connick,
15 F.3d
1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994)).
7
Case: 24-40415 Document: 73-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/13/2025
No. 24-40415
affidavits, a court determines that the evidence is such that a reasonable jury
could return a verdict for the party opposing the motion.” Haverda v. Hays
County, 723 F.3d 586, 591 (5th Cir. 2013). This court “must consider all facts
and evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
Id. If the
movant meets the initial burden of showing there is no genuine issue of
material fact, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to “come forward with
specific facts indicating a genuine issue for trial.” LeMaire v. La. Dep’t of
Transp. & Dev.,
480 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2007).
III
“Concerned by ‘abuses in the credit reporting industry,’ Congress
enacted the FCRA to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting that protects
consumers while meeting the needs of commerce.” Hammer v. Equifax Info.
Servs., L.L.C., 974 F.3d 564, 567 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). “To
achieve those goals, the Act regulates the consumer reporting agencies that
compile and disseminate personal information about consumers.”
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez,
594 U.S. 413, 418 (2021); see 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681a(f) (defining “consumer reporting agency”). The FCRA requires
consumer reporting agencies to “adopt reasonable procedures for meeting
the needs of commerce for consumer credit . . . in a manner which is fair and
equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy,
relevancy, and proper utilization of such information.” Id. at § 1681(b).
“Where possible, courts construe these obligations consistently with the
Act’s ‘ambitious objective . . . which uses expansive terms to describe the
adverse effects of unfair and inaccurate credit reporting and the
8
Case: 24-40415 Document: 73-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 06/13/2025
No. 24-40415
responsibilities of consumer reporting agencies.’” Hammer, 974 F.3d at 567
(quoting Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 62, (2007)); see also
Wagner v. TRW, Inc., No. 97–30601,
1998 WL 127812, at *1 (5th Cir. Mar. 4,
1998) (unpublished) (“The FCRA is to be liberally construed in favor of the
consumer.”). A consumer can bring a civil action against a credit reporting
agency for negligent or willful violations of its statutory obligations. See
id. at
§ 1681n (willful noncompliance); id. at § 1681o (negligent noncompliance).
A
Reyes argues the district court erred in concluding that the Citibank
account information that Equifax reported in her consumer file was accurate.
Section 1681i sets forth the procedures a consumer reporting agency
must follow when a consumer disputes the accuracy of information in the
consumer’s file. A consumer file is composed of “all of the information on
that consumer recorded and retained by a consumer reporting agency
regardless of how the information is stored.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(g).
Generally, an item of information is “inaccurate” within the meaning of the
FCRA “either because it is patently incorrect, or because it is misleading in
such a way and to such an extent that it can be expected to adversely affect
credit decisions.” Sepulvado v. CSC Credit Servs., Inc., 158 F.3d 890, 895 (5th
Cir. 1998) (citing Pinner v. Schmidt,
805 F.2d 1258, 1262 (5th Cir. 1986)).
Section 1681i provides that, upon receiving notice that a consumer
disputes “the completeness or accuracy of any item of information” in her
file, the consumer reporting agency must “conduct a reasonable
reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is
9
Case: 24-40415 Document: 73-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 06/13/2025
No. 24-40415
inaccurate.” Id. at § 1681i(a)(1)(A). In conducting its reinvestigation, the
agency must “review and consider all relevant information submitted by the
consumer” regarding the disputed information. Id. at § 1681i(a)(4). Within
30 days of notice of the dispute, the consumer reporting agency must either
record the current status of the disputed information in the consumer’s file,
or delete or modify the disputed item of information if it is “inaccurate or
incomplete or cannot be verified.” Id. at § 1681i(a)(1)(A), (5)(A). “If the
reinvestigation does not resolve the dispute, the consumer may file a brief
statement setting forth the nature of the dispute.” Id. at § 1681i(b). The
consumer reporting agency must include this statement, or a summary of the
dispute, with the disputed information in future consumer reports. Id. at
§ 1681i(c); see also id. at § 1681a(d) (defining “consumer report”).
1
The district court found, and Reyes does not dispute, that she had to
prove that the disputed information in her consumer file was inaccurate to
prevail on her § 1681i claim. 5 We have never addressed whether inaccuracy
is a requisite element of a § 1681i claim.
_____________________
5
Even though this issue was not directly raised by Reyes on appeal, “we may use
our ‘independent power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law’ to
any ‘issue or claim [that] is properly before the court, . . . not limited to the particular legal
theories advanced by the parties.’” Stramaski v. Lawley, 44 F.4th 318, 326 (5th Cir. 2022)
(quoting Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc.,
500 U.S. 90, 99 (1991)); see also Singleton v.
Wulff,
428 U.S. 106, 121 (1976) (“[W]hat questions may be taken up and resolved for the
first time on appeal is one left primarily to the discretion of the courts of appeals . . . .”).
10
Case: 24-40415 Document: 73-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 06/13/2025
No. 24-40415
Although § 1681i(a)(1)(A) does not expressly require inaccuracy to
establish a violation, it plainly states that a consumer reporting agency must
“conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed
information is inaccurate.” Id. at § 1681i(a)(1)(A). Congress enacted the
FCRA to protect consumers from the transmission of inaccurate credit
information. See id. at § 1681; S. Rep. No. 108–166, at 5–6 (2003) (“The
driving force behind the [1996 amendments to the FCRA] was the significant
amount of inaccurate information that was being reported by consumer
reporting agencies and the difficulties that consumers faced getting such
errors corrected.”). “Requiring an inaccuracy, even absent an express
statutory mandate, is consistent with the FCRA’s purpose to protect
consumers from the transmission of inaccurate information about them.”
Shaw v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 891 F.3d 749, 756 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal
quotation and citation omitted). Other circuits agree that “without a showing
that the reported information was in fact inaccurate, a claim brought under
§ 1681i must fail.” DeAndrade v. Trans Union LLC,
523 F.3d 61, 67 (1st Cir.
2008) (collecting cases). 6
_____________________
6
See, e.g., Bibbs v. Trans Union LLC, 43 F.4th 331, 344 (3d Cir. 2022) (holding that
“without a showing that the reported information was in fact inaccurate, a claim brought
under § 1681i must fail”) (quotations omitted); Berry v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,
115 F.4th
528, 536 (6th Cir. 2024) (holding that “a showing of inaccuracy is an essential element of a
§ 1681i claim”); Chaitoff v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,
79 F.4th 800, 811 (7th Cir. 2023) (“A
[consumer reporting agency]’s liability under both § 1681e(b) and § 1681i(a) depends on
inaccurate information—if the credit report is accurate, the consumer has suffered no
damages.”); Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC,
629 F.3d 876, 890 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“Although the FCRA’s reinvestigation provision, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i, does not on its face
require that an actual inaccuracy exist for a plaintiff to state a claim, many courts, including
our own, have imposed such a requirement.”); Wright v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,
805 F.3d
11
Case: 24-40415 Document: 73-1 Page: 12 Date Filed: 06/13/2025
No. 24-40415
We join the other circuits in concluding that inaccuracy is a threshold
requirement for § 1681i claims.
2
Here, the undisputed summary judgment evidence shows that the
new Citibank account belonged to Reyes, over $2,500 in charges were
incurred on the account, the charges had been made before Reyes reported
them as fraudulent to Citibank, Reyes did not make any payments for those
charges, the account was closed at Reyes’s request, the account’s
outstanding balance of $3,312 (including fees and accrued interest) was
charged off, and Citibank reported this information to Equifax. This
information was correctly reported in her consumer file at the time Reyes
filed a dispute with Equifax. 7 Because the Citibank account information in
Reyes’s consumer file was not “patently incorrect” or “misleading,” see
Sepulvado, 158 F.3d at 895, the district court did not err in concluding that
the information Equifax reported was accurate.
B
Reyes argues that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the
accuracy of the Citibank account reported by Equifax because she did not
_____________________
1232, 1242 (10th Cir. 2015) (holding that proof of “inaccuracy of the report” is essential to
prevail on a § 1681i(a) claim); Cahlin v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 936 F.2d 1151, 1160
(11th Cir. 1991) (explaining that a § 1681i claim “is properly raised when a particular credit
report contains a factual deficiency or error that could have been remedied by uncovering
additional facts”) (emphasis omitted).
7
Reyes clarified at oral argument that she and Citibank eventually entered into a
confidential settlement agreement regarding the disputed account.
12
Case: 24-40415 Document: 73-1 Page: 13 Date Filed: 06/13/2025
No. 24-40415
make the underlying charges and is not liable for charges that are fraudulent.
She contends that the reported Citibank account information was inaccurate
because whether she “owed the debt” (i.e., the outstanding balance) was
contested and unresolved. The district court rejected Reyes’s argument,
explaining that because her alleged inaccuracy was “based on a not-yetadjudicated position that the debt is not legally valid,” 8 it was not inaccurate
for purposes of a § 1681i claim. The court concluded that “the FCRA does
not provide a vehicle for Reyes to challenge the legal validity of her debt to
Citibank by suing Equifax for accurately reporting that debt.”
Several circuit courts, including district courts within our circuit,
agree that a consumer may not use § 1681i’s reinvestigation procedures to
collaterally attack the validity of a reported debt. See, e.g., DeAndrade, 523
F.3d at 68 (affirming summary judgment dismissal of § 1681i claim because
consumer was “launching an impermissible collateral attack against a lender
by bringing an FCRA claim against a consumer reporting agency”);
Carvalho,
629 F.3d at 892 (“We agree that reinvestigation claims are not the
proper vehicle for collaterally attacking the legal validity of consumer
debts.”). 9 These courts have found that credit reporting agencies are not
tribunals and “are neither qualified nor obligated to resolve legal issues.”
_____________________
8
As the district court noted, Reyes’s claims with Citibank were pending arbitration
at the time of summary judgment.
9
See, e.g., Chuluunbat v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 4 F.4th 562, 567–68 (7th Cir.
2021); Wright, 805 F.3d at 1244–45; Losch v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC,
995 F.3d 937, 946
(11th Cir. 2021); Estrada v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,
670 F. Supp. 3d 412, 423 (W.D. Tex.
2023).
13
Case: 24-40415 Document: 73-1 Page: 14 Date Filed: 06/13/2025
No. 24-40415
Denan v. Trans Union LLC, 959 F.3d 290, 296 (7th Cir. 2020); Chaitoff,
79
F.4th at 814 (“We have long held that [consumer reporting agencies] are not
well suited to adjudicate legal defenses to a debt, so they are not liable for
reporting information that may be legally inaccurate.”); Wright,
805 F.3d at
1242 (explaining that a reasonable reinvestigation “does not require
[consumer reporting agencies] to resolve legal disputes about the validity of
the underlying debts they report”). Because consumer reporting agencies
lack the authority to adjudicate legal disputes, “courts have been loath to
allow consumers to mount collateral attacks on the legal validity of their debts
in the guise of FCRA reinvestigation claims.” Carvalho,
629 F.3d at 891.
Instead, they recognize that “[t]he FCRA expects consumers to dispute the
validity of a debt with the furnisher of the information or append a note to
their credit report to show the claim is disputed.” Wright,
805 F.3d at 1244;
see Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP,
584 F.3d 1147, 1156 (9th Cir. 2009)
(noting that “the furnisher of credit information stands in a far better position
to make a thorough investigation of a disputed debt than the [consumer
reporting agency]”).
1
Reyes argues that we should not follow what she refers to as the
“Collateral Attack Cases” because “their holdings contradict the express
statutory requirements of the FCRA.” She contends that “when a consumer
reporting agency cannot, for whatever reason, verify the accuracy of disputed
information,” § 1681i(a)(5)(A) requires the consumer reporting agency to
delete the information because it “cannot be verified.” We disagree.
14
Case: 24-40415 Document: 73-1 Page: 15 Date Filed: 06/13/2025
No. 24-40415
Section 1681i(a)(5) states, in relevant part, that “[i]f, after any
reinvestigation under paragraph (1) of any information disputed by a
consumer, an item of the information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete
or cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall [] promptly delete
that item of information from the file of the consumer, or modify that item of
information, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation . . . .”
Because “inaccurate” and “verified” are not defined in the FCRA, we look
to the ordinary meaning of those terms. See Gross v. FBL Financial Services,
Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 175 (2009) (“Statutory construction must begin with the
language employed by Congress and the assumption that the ordinary
meaning of that language accurately expresses the legislative purpose.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Santos,
553 U.S. 507,
511 (2008) (“When a term is undefined, we give it its ordinary meaning.”).
The ordinary meaning of “verify” is: “1 To prove to be true; confirm;
substantiate. 2 To confirm the truth or truthfulness of. 3 To authenticate.”
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1064 (3d ed. 1919). As discussed, we
previously defined “inaccurate” as applied in the FCRA context as
“patently incorrect” or “misleading.” See Sepulvado, 158 F.3d at 895.
In Mader v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., the consumer alleged that
Experian was inaccurately reporting his student loan debt because it was
discharged following his bankruptcy. 56 F.4th 264, 267 (2d Cir. 2023).
Although he claimed that the debt was a private loan and not subject to the
discharge exemption for education loans, the bankruptcy decree did not
explicitly discharge this debt and had noted that student loan debts are not
15
Case: 24-40415 Document: 73-1 Page: 16 Date Filed: 06/13/2025
No. 24-40415
discharged. Id. at 268. The court explained that if an alleged inaccuracy
“evades objective verification”—like inaccuracies that turn on legal
disputes—it is not cognizable under the FCRA. Id. at 269–70. Because there
was an unresolved legal question regarding whether the consumer owed the
debt, its reporting by Experian, as found by the court, was “not sufficiently
objectively verifiable to render [his] credit report ‘inaccurate’ under the
FCRA.” Id. at 270. We find the Second Circuit’s reasoning persuasive and
apply it in this case.
Although § 1681i “requires the prompt deletion if the disputed
information is inaccurate or unverifiable,” the alleged inaccuracy reported by
the consumer reporting agency must first be “sufficiently objectively
verifiable” to be actionable under the FCRA. See id.; see also Sessa v. Trans
Union, LLC, 74 F.4th 38, 40 (2d Cir. 2023) (“[A]n FCRA claim alleges an
‘inaccuracy’ so long as the challenged information is objectively and readily
verifiable.”); cf. Roberts v. Carter-Young, Inc.,
131 F.4th 241, 251 (4th Cir.
2025) (“Inaccuracies that are objectively and readily verifiable do not include
claims of tortious conduct that require a furnisher to evaluate the subjective
nature of the parties’ actions—such as claims of fraud or retaliation.”). This
reading is faithful to the statutory text and the legislative purposes behind the
FCRA. See S. Rep. No. 108–166, at 7 (“Achieving the accuracy in
consumer report information was a main goal of the FCRA when it was
enacted in 1970.”); see also United States v. Marshall,
798 F.3d 296, 309 (5th
Cir. 2015) (“Where possible, statutes must be read in harmony with one
another so as to give meaning to each provision.” (citation omitted)). In
16
Case: 24-40415 Document: 73-1 Page: 17 Date Filed: 06/13/2025
No. 24-40415
contrast, reading § 1681i(a)(5)(A) to require the deletion of debt information
because of inaccuracies which “cannot be verified” until all legal disputes are
fully adjudicated would frustrate the FCRA’s goal of ensuring “fair and
accurate credit reporting. Id. at § 1681(b).
2
Reyes contends that several years before the Collateral Attack Cases
were decided, this court “correctly applied the deletion requirement of
Section 1681i(a)(5)(A) to the ‘cannot be verified’ condition” in Pinner v.
Schmidt, 805 F.2d 1258, 1262 (5th Cir. 1986) and Stevenson v. TRW Inc.,
987
F.2d 288, 293 (5th Cir. 1993). In Pinner, we held that it was unreasonable for
the consumer reporting agency that, despite receiving evidence of a
contentious, personal dispute between the plaintiff and the manager of his
ex-employer, contacted only the manager to verify the debt (which was later
found inaccurate). 805 F.2d at 1260–62. In Stevenson, we held that the
consumer reporting agency was liable for failing to promptly delete disputed
information, where there was evidence that it had determined that certain
reported accounts were either confirmed inaccurate by the furnisher or
unverifiable because the furnisher did not respond to its verification requests.
987 F.2d at 293. Reyes’s reliance on these cases is misplaced.
Although both cases recognized that a consumer reporting agency can
be liable for not deleting “unverifiable” information in certain
circumstances, they did not address a claimed inaccuracy that would require
the consumer reporting agency to adjudicate a legal dispute like the validity
of debt. Additionally, unlike here, the disputed information in Pinner and
17
Case: 24-40415 Document: 73-1 Page: 18 Date Filed: 06/13/2025
No. 24-40415
Stevenson were confirmed to be factually inaccurate, and the liability of the
consumer reporting agencies ultimately turned on the reasonableness of their
investigations.
We find persuasive the reasoning of the Collateral Attack Cases and
join the other circuits in holding that consumer reporting agencies are not
required to investigate the legal validity of disputed debts under the FCRA. 10
…
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
_____________________
10
After oral argument, Reyes filed a Rule 28(j) letter to alert us to the Third
Circuit’s recent decision in Ritz v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, 2025 WL 1303945
(3d Cir. May 6, 2025). That non-binding case concerned the investigation obligations of a
furnisher under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2. Id. at *4–5. Accordingly, we do not find the opinion
relevant to the resolution of this case.
18
