Jeffrey Chaitoff v. Experian Information Solutions, 79 F.4th 800

Background

Chaitoff fell behind on his Ocwen mortgage and entered a Trial Period Plan (TPP) in April 2017 requiring three reduced payments (May–July 2017); the TPP stated Ocwen would continue to report delinquency and would report entry into the TPP per FCRA/CDIA rules.
Experian’s credit report showed Chaitoff as delinquent through August 2017 but omitted any mention of the TPP; the reported May–July 2017 months were shown as delinquent (payments were credited to earlier delinquencies per TPP terms).
Chaitoff disputed Experian’s report in May and again in July 2018, submitting Ocwen correspondence (including the TPP offer and Ocwen’s confirmation that trial payments were completed) but not the full TPP terms; Experian sent ACDV requests to Ocwen, which confirmed the delinquency entries.
District court granted Experian summary judgment, reasoning the dispute required resolving a legal question (a matter outside a CRA’s competence) and that Experian’s procedures/reinvestigations were reasonable; it did not address every claim in detail.
Seventh Circuit: affirmed summary judgment as to Experian’s reporting of the May–July 2017 months (those entries were consistent with TPP terms), reversed on (1) whether omission of the TPP can be an actionable inaccuracy, (2) reasonableness of Experian’s reinvestigations, and (3) Experian’s failure to include a consumer statement of dispute in later reports under §1681i(c).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is omission of material information (here, the TPP) an actionable inaccuracy under §§1681e(b)/1681i(a)?	Omission of a TPP is materially misleading and thus an inaccuracy that can adversely affect credit decisions.	Experian conceded omissions can matter generally but argued that the specific dispute was legal, not factual.	Omission of material, accurate information that can be expected to affect credit decisions is an inaccuracy actionable under §§1681e(b)/1681i(a).
Was reporting/omission of the TPP a legal question (so CRA immune) or a factual one within a CRA’s competence?	The existence/description of the TPP is factual and should be reported; this is not a collateral legal attack on the debt.	Determining effect of a modification/TPP is a legal determination beyond a CRA’s role.	Existence of the TPP is a factual question; CRAs can and must include such factual information—this was not the type of legal adjudication reserved for courts.
Were Experian’s procedures and initial reporting reasonable under §1681e(b)?	Experian should have detected and reported the TPP.	Experian reasonably relied on Ocwen’s data and standard procedures before receiving notice of a dispute.	Experian’s procedures were reasonable as a matter of law before notice; summary judgment affirmed on the §1681e(b) claim.
After notice, were Experian’s reinvestigations reasonable under §1681i(a), and did it satisfy §1681i(c) for adding a consumer’s statement of dispute?	Experian’s reinvestigations were cursory (relying solely on ACDV) despite documents that conflicted with Ocwen’s ACDV responses; Chaitoff’s follow-up constituted a §1681i(b) statement of dispute that required inclusion per §1681i(c).	Experian argues its ACDV process and responses were reasonable and that Chaitoff never properly “filed” a statement of dispute to trigger §1681i(c).	A jury could find Experian’s reinvestigations unreasonable (reversed as to §1681i(a)); court also held Chaitoff’s follow-up sufficed to trigger §1681i(c) (reversed as to that claim). Experian not liable for willful violation on first reinvestigation, but remand for factual determination on later conduct.

Key Cases Cited

Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (U.S. 2007) (standard for willful violation/reckless disregard under FCRA)
Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 29 F.3d 280 (7th Cir. 1994) (CRAs need not resolve legal disputes or look beyond authentic public documents absent notice)
Denan v. Trans Union LLC, 959 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 2020) (distinguishing legal disputes over debt enforceability from factual reporting duties of CRAs)
Chuluunbat v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 4 F.4th 562 (7th Cir. 2021) (legal disputes about party relationships to debts are for courts, not CRAs)
Frazier v. Dovenmuehle Mortg., Inc., 72 F.4th 769 (7th Cir. 2023) (adopting materially misleading/omission standard under §1681s-2 and aligning it with §1681e analysis)
Pittman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 901 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2018) (furnisher’s failure to report a TPP can be incomplete reporting; omission can mislead about borrower responsibility)
Brill v. TransUnion LLC, 838 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2016) (limits on burdens CRAs must bear—e.g., not required to retain handwriting experts to adjudicate disputes)
Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688 (3d Cir. 2010) (credit reports that are materially misleading through omission can violate FCRA; remedial purpose of statute)
Sarver v. Experian Info. Sols., 390 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2004) (reasonableness of CRA procedures normally for jury unless unreasonable as a matter of law)
Collins v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 775 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2015) (ACDV-only verification may be insufficient once consumer provides conflicting evidence)
Losch v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 995 F.3d 937 (11th Cir. 2021) (vacating summary judgment where CRA could have taken additional, cost-effective steps after notice to resolve a dispute)