140 F.4th 279
5th Cir.2025Background
- Mary Reyes disputed over $2,500 in allegedly fraudulent charges on her Citibank credit card, which were transferred to a new account after she flagged the charges.
- Citibank investigated but ultimately determined the charges were valid, declined to issue credit, and reported the balance to credit bureaus, including Equifax.
- Reyes’s attorney sent dispute letters to Equifax, often referencing the old account number; Equifax responded that the old account was not reported but verified the new account with Citibank, which confirmed its accuracy.
- Reyes stopped making payments, resulting in a charge-off and a negative Equifax report, which affected her ability to obtain a loan.
- Reyes sued Equifax for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), focusing on Equifax’s failure to properly reinvestigate and correct her file, but the district court granted summary judgment to Equifax.
- On appeal, Reyes challenged only the dismissal of her § 1681i reinvestigation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Equifax’s report was inaccurate under § 1681i | Citibank account debt was not valid due to fraud, so Equifax’s reporting was inaccurate | Account information was accurate; Equifax had no duty to adjudicate disputed liability | Plaintiff must prove inaccuracy; here, the report was not factually incorrect or misleading |
| Whether § 1681i requires deletion if the debt 'cannot be verified' (pending dispute) | If a legal dispute over validity exists, the debt is 'unverifiable' & must be deleted | 'Cannot be verified' does not cover unresolved legal disputes; must be objectively unverifiable | Only objectively, factually unverifiable items are covered; not legal disputes |
| Whether the FCRA allows attacking the legal validity of debt through CRA dispute | Reyes may challenge the debt’s validity under the FCRA's dispute process | FCRA does not allow collateral attacks on debt validity through reporting agencies | CRAs not required to adjudicate legal disputes; such claims are improper |
| Whether summary judgment was proper | Reyes argues factual disputes existed re: what Equifax should have investigated or deleted | No factual dispute as to the accuracy of what Equifax reported; no FCRA violation | Affirmed summary judgment for Equifax |
Key Cases Cited
- Sepulvado v. CSC Credit Servs., Inc., 158 F.3d 890 (5th Cir. 1998) (Defines "inaccuracy" under the FCRA as patently incorrect or misleading)
- DeAndrade v. Trans Union LLC, 523 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2008) (Section 1681i requires actual factual inaccuracy; doesn't allow collateral attacks on legal disputes)
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007) (Interprets FCRA's remedial purpose)
- Hammer v. Equifax Info. Servs., L.L.C., 974 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 2020) (Discusses FCRA's statutory goals and consumer protections)
- Chaitoff v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 79 F.4th 800 (7th Cir. 2023) (CRAs not required to resolve legal defenses to debt in FCRA claims)
- Wright v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 805 F.3d 1232 (10th Cir. 2015) (Reasonable reinvestigation does not require CRAs to resolve legal disputes on debt validity)
- Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2010) (1681i claims may not be used to challenge the legal validity of debt)