Peterson v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Background

Christa L. Peterson sued Experian Information Solutions, Inc., under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Peterson had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in March 2019 and received a discharge on June 26, 2019. She alleged that an Experian credit report issued on August 30, 2019, inaccurately reported information about a Southpoint Federal Credit Union credit-card account. The report listed a $2,481 balance as of July 2019, late payments for May through July 2019, and an account that was open and $214 past due. The report also correctly stated that Peterson’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy had been discharged in June 2019.

Peterson claimed that Experian should have reported the account as discharged in bankruptcy or with a zero balance. She alleged that Experian failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). She sought declaratory relief, actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, fees, costs, and interest.

Experian moved for summary judgment and to exclude Peterson’s expert witness. The court had previously denied Experian’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, including its argument that an earlier class-action settlement barred Peterson’s claim. The court stated that it was not deciding the broader question of whether that earlier settlement precluded the claim.

Actual Damages

To prevail under the FCRA provision at issue, Peterson had to provide evidence that Experian failed to follow reasonable procedures, reported inaccurate information, caused her harm, and caused that harm through its failure to use reasonable procedures.

The court focused on damages. Peterson claimed that she was denied a Chase credit card because of the Experian report, but she provided no documentary or other corroborating evidence tying the denial to the report. Her own deposition testimony stated that Chase denied the application because of her bankruptcy. The court also concluded that evidence that Chase had inquired about her credit did not establish that the report caused the denial.

The court likewise found insufficient evidence of emotional distress. Peterson described the experience as a “nightmare” and “stressful,” and said that she had experienced distress, anxiety, frustration, and depression. But the court characterized that evidence as conclusory. Peterson had not sought medical or psychological care or incurred related expenses because of the events underlying the lawsuit, according to her admissions. The court also noted that her depression predated the report and that she had not specifically attributed worsening depression and anxiety to the Experian report.

The court therefore held that Peterson had not shown actual damages caused by Experian’s alleged misconduct.

Statutory and Punitive Damages

Peterson also sought statutory and punitive damages, arguing that Experian willfully violated the FCRA by knowing that her debts had been discharged but failing to update the account information. Under the FCRA, a willful violation requires a knowing or reckless violation of the law. The court explained that reckless conduct requires more than a careless interpretation of the statute; it requires a substantially greater risk of violating the law.

The court found that Peterson’s allegations, even if accepted, showed at most a negligent failure to include information on the report. They did not show that Experian knowingly and intentionally disregarded Peterson’s rights. The court also stated that Experian’s reliance on procedures approved in the earlier class-action matter showed that its conduct was not willful or reckless.

Disposition

The court held that Peterson had not presented sufficient evidence of actual harm and was not entitled to statutory or punitive damages. It granted Experian’s motion for summary judgment, denied the motion to exclude Peterson’s expert witness as moot, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The order was signed by Judge David S. Doty.