Curtis J. Collins v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 775 F.3d 1330

Background

Collins disputed an Equable Ascent debt on his Experian file after winning a small‑claims suit; he submitted two letters (one with ID and SSN) requesting deletion.
Experian first flagged the first letter as suspicious, asked for more verification, then received a complete second dispute and sent an ACDV to Equable.
Equable responded to the ACDV that the debt remained valid; Experian took no further investigative steps and left the item on Collins’ file for months before ultimately removing it.
Collins sued under the FCRA § 1681i(a), alleging Experian failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation (negligent and willful violations). The district court granted summary judgment to Experian on § 1681i(a) negligence because Collins did not show the disputed information was published to a third party, and granted summary judgment for Experian on the willful claim.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit addressed whether § 1681i(a) requires third‑party publication of the credit report to recover actual damages and whether Experian’s conduct was willful.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether actual damages under FCRA § 1681i(a) require publication of the erroneous information to a third party	Collins: § 1681i(a) protects information in the agency’s file; recovery for actual damages does not require third‑party disclosure	Experian: prior precedent and policy require publication to third parties to support emotional‑distress/actual damages	Held: No publication requirement — § 1681i(a) concerns items in a consumer’s file, not only communicated "consumer reports," so third‑party disclosure is not necessary to recover actual damages under § 1681i(a). Case remanded to assess whether Collins presented sufficient evidence of actual damages.
Whether Experian’s reinvestigation was negligent	Collins: Relying solely on the furnisher (Equable) and ignoring court judgment/evidence was unreasonable	Experian: Sending ACDV to furnisher satisfied reinvestigation procedures	Held: District court reasonably found a triable issue on negligence; appellate court did not disturb that determination.
Whether Experian acted willfully (reckless disregard) under § 1681n(a)	Collins: Failure to reasonably investigate despite evidence (court judgment) shows reckless disregard	Experian: At most careless/negligent; risk of violating statute not substantially greater than a reasonable reading	Held: Experian’s conduct did not meet the higher willfulness/recklessness standard; summary judgment for Experian on willful claim was affirmed.
Standard of interpretation: whether statutory text controls over cases requiring publication	Collins: Plain statutory definitions of "file" vs "consumer report" support his reading	Experian: Relied on precedent requiring publication to show emotional distress	Held: Court applied plain‑meaning textual analysis: "file" (retained info) differs from "consumer report" (communication), so textual distinction controls.

Key Cases Cited

Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (Sup. Ct.) (willfulness includes reckless disregard standard under FCRA)
Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (Sup. Ct.) (presumption that differing statutory language conveys different meaning)
Pinner v. Schmidt, 805 F.2d 1258 (5th Cir.) (contacting only the creditor may be insufficient reinvestigation)
Bryant v. TRW, Inc., 689 F.2d 72 (6th Cir.) (minimal contacts with creditor insufficient to re‑verify disputed information)
Wantz v. Experian Info. Solutions, 386 F.3d 829 (7th Cir.) (discussion of damages and publication in FCRA context)
Cahlin v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 936 F.2d 1151 (11th Cir.) (FCRA damages analysis where issue of publication was not directly addressed)
Levine v. World Fin. Network Nat’l Bank, 437 F.3d 1118 (11th Cir.) (compensable emotional distress relevant to FCRA damages)
Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir.) (willfulness—knowledge or reckless disregard under FCRA)