115 F.4th 528
6th Cir.2024Background
- Adam Berry's credit report erroneously showed outstanding spousal and child support obligations due to data from the Michigan Office of Child Support (OCS).
- Berry, after reconciling with his ex-wife and obtaining court orders abating his support obligations, submitted these orders to Experian to correct his report.
- Despite receiving state court orders, Experian continued to report Berry as delinquent, relying solely on automated verification with OCS.
- Berry alleged that Experian negligently or willfully failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
- The district court granted Experian’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding Experian was required by FCRA to report all information received from OCS.
- On appeal, Berry challenged only the findings related to his support obligations; the Sixth Circuit reviewed whether Berry plausibly alleged FCRA violations based on Experian’s failure to account for the court orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to ensure report accuracy | Experian must ensure maximum possible accuracy, including court orders info | Required to report all info from OCS as mandated by § 1681s-1 | Berry plausibly alleged inaccuracy; duty includes completeness |
| Reasonableness of investigation | Simply asking OCS is insufficient when consumer disputes with court docs | Automated verification with OCS fulfills FCRA obligations | Failure to reasonably investigate after receiving court orders |
| Scope of "State agency" under FCRA | State courts qualify as state agencies whose orders Experian must report | Only executive agencies like OCS count, not courts | State courts are not "agencies" under FCRA for reporting purposes |
| Abandonment of "supplement theory" | Alleged Experian needed to include court orders or delete the delinquency | Berry abandoned the "supplement" argument at oral argument | Majority: Not abandoned; Dissent: Should bar "supplement" theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (explains FCRA’s purposes and willfulness standard for statutory violations)
- Dalton v. Cap. Associated Indus., Inc., 257 F.3d 409 (defines inaccuracy in FCRA context as both patently incorrect and materially misleading information)
- Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688 (material omissions in reporting can create FCRA liability)
- Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 29 F.3d 280 (CRAs can rely on court documents unless notified they are erroneous)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Rule 12 standard for sufficiency of pleadings)