Michael Dreher v. Experian Information Solutions
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8358
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2010 Michael Dreher discovered a delinquent credit card tradeline in his name on Experian reports labeled as “Advanta Bank” / “Advanta Credit Cards.” Dreher disputed the account and corresponded with Advanta; the tradeline remained until June 2012.
- Advanta had been placed in receivership in 2010; CardWorks was appointed servicer and continued to operate using the Advanta name and contact info. CardWorks and FDIC-authorized representatives agreed tradelines continue to show the Advanta name.
- Dreher sued Experian (and initially CardWorks) under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), claiming Experian violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)(2) by listing the creditor (Advanta) but not the servicer (CardWorks) as the source of information.
- The district court found Experian’s omission willful as a matter of law, certified a class of ~69,000 members, and awarded statutory damages of $170 per class member (total ≈ $11.7 million).
- On appeal, the Fourth Circuit addressed Article III standing after Spokeo, focusing on whether Dreher alleged a concrete injury from the alleged FCRA disclosure violation. The court vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether listing Advanta instead of CardWorks violated § 1681g(a)(2) and caused Article III injury | Dreher: omission denied him statutorily required information (an "informational injury") and thus is a concrete harm supporting standing | Experian: any statutory violation was purely procedural; listing Advanta did not cause real-world harm or impede resolution | Held: Even if statutory violation occurred, Dreher failed to allege a concrete, particularized injury required for Article III standing; class action must be dismissed |
| Whether a statutory violation alone satisfies Spokeo concreteness requirement | Dreher: statute-created right to information suffices | Experian: Spokeo requires a real-world adverse effect beyond a bare procedural violation | Held: Spokeo controls—statutory violation without real-world adverse effect is insufficient |
| Whether denial of the servicer’s name hindered Dreher’s ability to fix his credit or affected his security clearance | Dreher: knowing the servicer is material and affects consumer dealings | Experian: listing Advanta did not impede contacting customer service, resolving the dispute, or the security-clearance process; may be more useful to consumers | Held: No evidence that listing Advanta instead of CardWorks impaired resolution or caused concrete harm |
| Whether alleged informational injury aligns with harms Congress intended to prevent under the FCRA | Dreher: withholding source information is exactly the harm Congress sought to remedy | Experian: Congress targeted inaccurate and unfair credit reporting; here no inaccuracy or efficiency/privacy injury shown | Held: Dreher failed to show his alleged informational deprivation was the type of concrete harm the FCRA aims to prevent |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (statutory violations require a concrete, not merely procedural, injury to confer Article III standing)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (three-part standing test: injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Federal Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) (informational injuries can be concrete when denial of statutorily required information causes a harm Congress sought to prevent)
- Public Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989) (denial of information that would enable plaintiffs to participate effectively constituted a concrete injury)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (lack of jurisdiction requires dismissal; courts must ensure Article III standing)
- Trans Union Corp. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 245 F.3d 809 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (definition and components of a credit-report tradeline)
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007) (FCRA’s objective: fair and accurate credit reporting and consumer protections)