Lewis v. Synchrony Bank and Experian

Background

Regina D. Lewis, representing herself, sued Synchrony Bank and Experian under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and asserted fraud. She alleged that two unauthorized payments of $159.58 and $100 were made to her Old Navy account on August 2, 2021. She claimed Synchrony acknowledged that the payments had been misapplied, agreed to refund late fees and interest, and took steps to correct credit-reporting inaccuracies, but that the payments were not credited or refunded. She alleged a loss of $259.58.

Synchrony moved to dismiss Lewis’s third amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not plausibly state a legal claim. The motion was unopposed.

Joinder of Experian

The court ruled that Experian was properly joined as a defendant under Rule 20 because Lewis alleged that Experian’s reporting of information supplied by Synchrony was part of the same series of transactions and that the claims involved common factual issues.

FCRA Claim Against Synchrony

The court treated Synchrony as a credit-information “furnisher”—an entity that supplies information to a consumer-reporting agency—and Experian as a consumer-reporting agency. The court explained that individuals cannot bring a private lawsuit against a furnisher for inaccurate-reporting duties under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a). A private claim may be brought under § 1681s-2(b) when a furnisher receives notice of a dispute from a consumer-reporting agency and fails to conduct a reasonable investigation.

Lewis did not allege that Synchrony received notice of a dispute from Experian, failed to investigate, or conducted an unreasonable investigation. The court therefore dismissed any FCRA claims against Synchrony for failure to state a claim, with prejudice.

FCRA Claim Against Experian

The court explained that a plaintiff must have Article III standing to sue in federal court. Standing requires an injury that is concrete and particularized, caused by the challenged conduct, and capable of being remedied by a court.

The court found that Lewis adequately alleged a concrete loss and that a favorable ruling could likely remedy that loss. But it found no sufficient connection between the $259.58 loss and Experian’s alleged FCRA violations. According to the complaint, the loss occurred on August 2, 2021, when Synchrony misposted the payment. The court reasoned that Experian could not have misreported the payment until after Synchrony recognized the error on February 17, 2022. Lewis also alleged that the misreporting affected her creditworthiness, but she did not identify a particular concrete loss, such as lost credit or loan opportunities.

Because Lewis did not establish standing, the court dismissed the claims against Experian without prejudice. The court did not decide whether Experian violated the FCRA. Lewis was granted permission to file a fourth amended complaint against Experian if she could allege a concrete injury in good faith.

Fraud Claim Against Synchrony

Under New York law, a fraud claim requires a material misrepresentation or omission, knowledge that it was false, an intent to defraud, reasonable reliance, and resulting damage. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) also requires the circumstances of fraud to be stated with particularity, including the alleged statement, who made it, when and where it was made, and why it was fraudulent.

The third amended complaint stated only that Synchrony committed fraud. Construing the complaint liberally, the court considered whether a customer-service representative’s alleged statement that late fees had been credited could support a fraud claim. The court found that Lewis did not allege facts showing Synchrony knew the statement was false, that she relied on it, or that she suffered harm because of that reliance. The court dismissed the fraud claims against Synchrony with prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Synchrony’s motion to dismiss. The claims against Synchrony were dismissed with prejudice, and judgment was entered in Synchrony’s favor. Because Lewis asserted no claims against Old Navy, the court dismissed all claims against Old Navy with prejudice. The claims against Experian were dismissed without prejudice, and Lewis was given until December 1, 2025, to file a fourth amended complaint asserting claims only against Experian. If she did not file by that deadline, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice.