Jena Miller v. Experian Information Services Inc.

Background

Miller moved into an apartment in 2021 under a one-year lease but moved out six weeks later because of noisy neighbors. The Property agreed to waive the lease’s early-termination fee in exchange for Miller’s agreement not to disparage the Property. The agreement was called the Mutual Recission Agreement and Release of Claims.

In December 2021, Miller posted negative online reviews about the Property. After the Property’s counsel sent cease-and-desist letters, the Property charged Miller an early-termination fee of $2,862, asserting that she had breached the agreement. Miller did not pay. The Property later sold the debt to Columbia Debt Recovery, which reported it to Experian in November 2023. Experian included the debt in Miller’s December 14, 2023, credit report.

Experian received a dispute through a third party on April 17, 2024. Experian asked Miller to contact it directly to confirm her dispute, and she did so on May 14, 2024. On May 17, Experian sent Miller’s letter and supporting documents to Columbia and asked Columbia to confirm the debt. Columbia certified on May 21 that it had investigated the dispute and concluded that the debt information was accurate.

Miller sued Experian and other credit-reporting agencies, although the other agencies were later dismissed. She alleged that Experian violated sections 1681e(b) and 1681i of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Section 1681e(b) requires credit-reporting agencies to use reasonable procedures to ensure that reported information is as accurate as possible. Section 1681i requires an agency to reinvestigate disputed information after receiving a dispute from a consumer. Miller sought statutory and actual damages, claiming that Experian’s reporting harmed her credit rating and caused emotional harm.

Court’s Analysis

The court granted summary judgment, which is a decision without a trial when the record shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The court stated that Miller’s claims required her to show that the reported information was inaccurate. Miller argued that the report was inaccurate because she had not breached the agreement and because, even if she had breached it, the Property was not entitled to collect the early-termination fee.

The court characterized Miller’s position as a legal challenge to the Property’s claim against her rather than a dispute about a factual inaccuracy in Experian’s report. Relying on the authorities it cited, the court held that credit-reporting agencies are not required or equipped to resolve legal disputes about whether an underlying debt is valid. It concluded that Experian’s reporting of the debt, even though Miller disputed it, did not violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Because Miller could not establish the required inaccuracy, no reasonable jury could find for her on the claims under sections 1681e(b) and 1681i.

The court’s footnote also stated that, even if Experian had reported an inaccuracy, the record did not support finding that Experian’s investigation and reinvestigation processes were legally insufficient.

Disposition

The court granted Experian’s motion for summary judgment. It denied the motions to exclude expert testimony as moot. The court dismissed the case with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered accordingly.