Lopez v. TransUnion

Background

Luther Lopez, representing himself, sued Transunion, LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and Chex Systems, Inc. under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The court treated Lopez’s verified petition and supplemental addendum as the operative complaint. Lopez alleged that he had been the victim of identity theft, identity fraud, unauthorized charges, and fraud, and that the defendants had not properly investigated his disputes.

Lopez’s later opposition papers provided additional details. He alleged that an unauthorized or incorrect charge of nearly $2,000 from a car-rental company was billed to his Capital One account. He said the charge was placed on his checking account, the account was closed, and the closure was reported to ChexSystems. He further alleged that the information appeared on his consumer report when he applied for membership at Andrews Credit Union, and that his application was denied.

Claims against Transunion were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in February 2025. Claims against Experian were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in July 2025. ChexSystems then moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Lopez had made only conclusory allegations that ChexSystems harmed him.

Court’s analysis

The court considered claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), which requires a consumer-reporting agency to use reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of reported information, and § 1681i, which requires a reasonable reinvestigation after a consumer disputes information. The court explained that both provisions require the plaintiff to identify inaccurate information. For a § 1681e(b) claim, the plaintiff must also allege that the agency acted negligently or willfully, reported inaccurate information, caused an injury, and proximately caused that injury.

The court held that Lopez’s verified petition did not identify the specific information on his consumer report that was inaccurate or explain how it was inaccurate. It also did not explain how ChexSystems violated the FCRA, when ChexSystems reported the information, or what ChexSystems did or failed to do during its investigation. The court noted that the petition did not mention ChexSystems by name when making its central allegations and instead referred to the defendants collectively.

The court also considered the additional allegations and documents in Lopez’s opposition. It concluded that those materials still did not state a claim. Lopez’s allegations concerned the validity of the approximately $2,000 charge, but he did not explain why the charge was unauthorized or incorrect or why the information reported by ChexSystems was inaccurate. The court relied on precedent holding that inaccuracies turning on legal disputes, such as whether a debt is valid, are not actionable under the FCRA unless the reported information is objectively and readily verifiable.

The court further found that Lopez had not provided facts showing that ChexSystems failed to use reasonable reporting or reinvestigation procedures. His statements that a proper investigation would take months or years, and his questions about how ChexSystems communicated with Capital One or whether it contacted the car-rental company, were treated as unsupported conclusions rather than factual allegations of wrongdoing. Because the court already found that Lopez failed to state an FCRA claim, it did not decide whether complaints submitted through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau satisfied the requirement that a consumer notify the reporting agency directly.

Disposition

The court granted ChexSystems’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and granted Lopez leave to amend. The amended complaint must completely replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so Lopez must repeat any facts or claims he wants to preserve. The court identified possible areas for clarification, including what ChexSystems reported, why the report was allegedly inaccurate, and how ChexSystems allegedly failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. Lopez’s amended complaint was due by September 2, 2025; otherwise, the case would be closed.