Driscoll v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Background

Jessica Driscoll brought a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a federal law governing consumer credit reporting, against Community Loan Servicing LLC (CLS). The opinion states that Driscoll originally sued four other defendants but later settled her claims against them.

CLS transferred the mortgage to Nationstar Mortgage LLC in November 2022. In September 2023, after the bankruptcy proceeding had ended, Driscoll obtained a credit report containing information reported to Experian Information Solutions, Inc. She alleged that the report inaccurately described the CLS mortgage account because it referred to her bankruptcy and contained a derogatory mark. In October 2023, she sent Experian a dispute letter requesting an investigation and correction. Experian did not respond. In December 2023, Driscoll obtained an updated report and noticed that the CLS account information, called a tradeline, was no longer included in the Experian section.

Legal standard

CLS moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences for the plaintiff, but the allegations must make the claim plausible rather than merely possible.

Court’s analysis

Driscoll relied on 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), which imposes duties on entities that provide consumer information to consumer reporting agencies. When a consumer disputes information with a consumer reporting agency, the agency must notify the information provider. The provider must then conduct a reasonable investigation. If the provider finds that the information is inaccurate, incomplete, or cannot be verified, the statute allows it to modify, delete, or permanently block the information from being reported.

The court rejected Driscoll’s argument that the disappearance of the CLS tradeline showed that CLS failed to investigate reasonably. The court held that deletion is one of the three actions expressly authorized by the statute. It also rejected her argument that CLS had to modify the information rather than delete it, explaining that the Fair Credit Reporting Act does not impose an affirmative duty on information providers to report consumer information.

The court distinguished cases involving consumer reporting agencies rather than information providers. Those cases relied on a statutory provision requiring consumer reporting agencies to use reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy, and the court held that provision did not apply to CLS.

The court further held that even if the Fair Credit Reporting Act imposed an affirmative duty on a provider to continue reporting a tradeline, CLS’s deletion was reasonable under the circumstances. CLS no longer held Driscoll’s mortgage when it deleted the information. The opinion states that Driscoll admitted at oral argument that the information had been accurate when CLS first reported it in June 2020. The court reasoned that it was reasonable for CLS to stop reporting a mortgage it no longer held rather than continue monitoring and reporting on its status.

Disposition

The court granted CLS’s motion to dismiss. The order states that Driscoll’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice and on the merits as to CLS, and that judgment should be entered accordingly.