FCRA Opinion: Jackson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC

A Court in the Middle District of Georgia released an opinion with two important rulings regarding standing under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and what constitutes misleading information.  The Court found in Jackson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC:

Plaintiff, in his Amended Complaint, makes several allegations that clearly satisfy the injury in fact requirement. For example, Plaintiff alleges that “[a]s a direct and proximate cause of U.S. Auto’s willful failure to perform its duties under the FCRA, Plaintiff has suffered damages, mental anguish, suffering, humiliation, and embarrassment.” [Doc. 25, at ¶ 35]. Plaintiff further alleges that he “has suffered credit and emotional damages” as a result of the allegedly inaccurate trade lines including “undue stress and anxiety” and the inability to obtain “more favorable credit terms.” [Id. at 24].[2] Both types of injuries—emotional and credit-related—are compensable under the FCRA…Consequently, the Court denies Defendant U.S. Auto’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion.

And as to inaccuracy:

Adopting the approach taken by the court in Freedom, the Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to raise a plausible claim that the Trans Union credit disclosure was materially misleading. Specifically, the Court finds that it is plausible that the monthly payment trade line could materially mislead a prospective lender about the nature of Plaintiff’s obligation to make payments on this account particularly when the account continues to list a balance despite being charged off. However, nothing in the Court’s decision should be understood to preclude revisiting whether a reasonable jury could find in Plaintiff’s favor at the summary judge stage. At this point in the proceedings, though, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to “nudge[] [his] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007).