Sessa v. Trans Union, LLC
- Summarized by Wayne Greenwald , Jacobs, PC, Greenwald, P.C.
- 3 months 3 weeks ago
- Case Type:
- Consumer
- Case Status:
- Reversed and Remanded
- Citation:
- 22-87 (2nd Circuit, Jul 17,2023) Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- There is no bright-line rule providing that only purely factual or transcription errors in a consumer credit report, as opposed to “legal errors”, are actionable under the FCRA, and no threshold inquiry as to whether an alleged inaccuracy is “legal” or “factual” in nature.
- Procedural context:
- Appeal from District Court order granting defendant, consumer reporting agency, summary judgment.
- Facts:
- Plaintiff-appellant leased a car November 2018. Defendant-appellee, credit reporting agency, received information about the lease. Defendant reported on plaintiff’s credit report that the plaintiff owed a “balloon payment” at the end of the lease term - a payment that the lease’s terms did not require. The plaintiff sued the credit reporting agency under section 1681e(b) of the FCRA which requires credit reporting agencies (“CRAs”), like Trans Union, to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information” in a consumer’s credit report. 15 U.S.C. §1681e(b). The District Court granted the CRA summary judgment, reasoning that the credit report could not be considered “inaccurate” under section 1681e(b) because the question of whether the plaintiff owed a balloon payment amounted to a legal, rather than factual, dispute.
- Judge(s):
- Cabranes, Nardini, Merriam
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
