DiTella v. TransUnion, LLC

Background

Lonny DiTella, proceeding without a lawyer, sued TransUnion under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act (NYFCRA). He alleged that he was a victim of identity theft and that more than $3,000 in fraudulent charges were made to his Jasper Credit Card in 2022.

After DiTella disputed the Jasper account, TransUnion deleted it from his credit report. DiTella claimed that this lowered his credit score by removing positive payment history. He also alleged that, after the Social Security Administration issued him a new Social Security number, TransUnion failed to update his credit information and maintained two separate credit files with different Social Security numbers. He claimed these actions harmed his credit reputation, caused credit denials and account closures, created identity-verification problems, and resulted in information from his old file being shared with third parties.

DiTella asserted several FCRA and NYFCRA claims. TransUnion moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), which uses the same pleading standard as a motion claiming that a complaint fails to state a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that DiTella did not allege enough facts to support his claim that TransUnion failed to reasonably investigate his dispute over the Jasper account. The court noted that deleting information that is inaccurate, incomplete, or cannot be verified is consistent with the FCRA. It also found that DiTella did not provide sufficient facts showing that the information was inaccurate or that TransUnion failed to follow appropriate procedures.

The court likewise found that DiTella had not adequately supported his claim that TransUnion failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure accurate reporting by maintaining two credit files. He alleged that two files existed but did not provide supporting facts. The court also noted that TransUnion had asked him for documents verifying his new Social Security number and that he did not allege that he provided the requested verification.

The court rejected the claim under FCRA § 1681e(e)(2), which concerns procedures used by an entity that obtains a consumer report from another entity for resale. DiTella did not allege that TransUnion obtained his report from another entity for resale. The court also rejected his claim under FCRA § 1681r and the analogous NYFCRA provision because those provisions apply to officers or employees of a consumer reporting agency, not the agency itself, and because DiTella did not allege that information was provided to an unauthorized person.

The court dismissed the claim under FCRA § 1681s-2 because that provision applies to entities that provide information to consumer reporting agencies, rather than to a consumer reporting agency such as TransUnion. It also dismissed the claim under FCRA § 1681s-3 because DiTella did not allege that TransUnion used information to make a marketing solicitation about its products or services.

Finally, the court found that DiTella had not plausibly alleged a violation of FCRA § 1681c-1(b)(1)(B), which concerns excluding a consumer from lists used for unsolicited credit or insurance offers after an identity-theft report and appropriate proof of identity. He did not sufficiently allege that he requested a fraud alert from TransUnion, provided the required proof, or received a qualifying prescreened offer from an affiliated third party.

Disposition and Leave to Amend

The court granted TransUnion’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in full. It dismissed with prejudice DiTella’s claims under FCRA §§ 1681e(e)(2), 1681r, 1681s-2, and 1681s-3, and under NYFCRA § 380-p.

The court dismissed without prejudice DiTella’s remaining claims under FCRA §§ 1681i, 1681e(b), and 1681c-1(b)(1)(B), along with their analogous NYFCRA claims. It granted DiTella leave to amend those claims because the court found that additional facts could plausibly support them. Any amended complaint had to identify the claims against TransUnion specifically and provide the facts supporting them.

DiTella could file an amended complaint by August 29, 2025. If he did so, the court would set a schedule for TransUnion’s response. If he did not, the court stated that it would direct entry of judgment for TransUnion and close the case.

Attorney’s Fees

TransUnion requested attorney’s fees and costs, asserting that DiTella had litigated in bad faith or for harassment. The court declined to award fees because TransUnion had not provided sufficient evidence that DiTella began and continued the litigation for those purposes.