Rivera v. TransUnion
3:22-cv-01038
D. Conn.May 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Rivera, proceeding pro se, sued Trans Union, a consumer reporting agency, alleging it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
- Rivera alleged Trans Union furnished inaccurate credit information, disclosed personal identifying information without consent, and failed to properly investigate disputed items on his credit report.
- The court had previously dismissed the case due to procedural deficiencies but allowed Rivera to reopen and amend his complaint multiple times in response to defendant’s motions and judicial directives.
- Rivera's operative (third amended) complaint cited numerous FCRA provisions (often misidentified), and referenced related privacy laws (GLBA, Privacy Act), though he disclaimed intent to seek damages under those statutes.
- Trans Union moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that Rivera failed to plead plausible facts showing a violation of the FCRA.
- The Court evaluated whether the complaint, liberally construed due to Rivera’s pro se status, stated any actionable FCRA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Trans Union violated FCRA by furnishing info without consent | Furnished consumer reports and PII for business purposes without Rivera’s consent | Permissible purposes under FCRA do not require consent in many cases | Rivera failed to allege reports were furnished impermissibly; claim dismissed |
| Whether Trans Union reported barred, outdated, or inaccurate information | Included adverse items and collection accounts in violation of § 1681c | No info reported outside the FCRA’s 7-year limitation; no plausible inaccuracies shown | Rivera failed to allege factual inaccuracies or outdated info; claim dismissed |
| Whether Trans Union failed to follow reasonable procedures and reinvestigate disputes | Did not conduct an unbiased, proper reinvestigation into credit disputes as required by § 1681e and § 1681i | Reasonable procedures were followed; no inaccuracies identified; e-OSCAR process is compliant | Rivera did not plausibly allege procedural failures or inaccuracies; claim dismissed |
| Whether claims under GLBA and Privacy Act are actionable | GLBA and Privacy Act cited to support FCRA claims | No private right of action under GLBA; Privacy Act applies only to government agencies | Claims under these acts voluntarily dismissed or barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (facial plausibility for claims)
- Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119 (liberal construction for pro se complaints)
- Watson v. Caruso, 424 F. Supp. 3d 231 (FCRA § 1681e(b) standard)