*3
PRYOR,
Before WILLIAM
MARTIN
ROSENBAUM,
Judges.
Circuit
PRYOR,
Judge:
WILLIAM
Circuit
appeal requires us
This
decide wheth-
reporting
er a consumer
agency adopted
interpretation
unreasonable
Reporting Act,
of the Fair Credit
seq.,
1681 et
§
U.S.C.
when it
on a
stated
report
she
consumer’s credit
authorized user
her
credit card
parents
account. Kathleen Pedro’s
listed
her as an
user
their credit
authorized
account,
card
which later
into default.
went
agency,
A
reporting
TransUnion
LLC,
on Pe-
listed the
account
delinquent
report
a notation
dro’s credit
with
that she
was an
account.
user
TransUnion also included the
score,
calculating
when
Pedro’s credit
which caused her
to fall. Pedro
score
filed, a
complaint
then
of the Act that
provision
alleged that
agency agencies complied.
requires
that a consumer
procedures to assure
prior
“follow
credit score then “returned
its
accuracy
infor-
possible
maximum
of the
excellent level.”
concerning
mation
the individual about
complaint
the district
filed
report
relates.”
U.S.C.
whom
Equifax
court that
had
§§
1681n. The district court dis-
Reporting
willfully violated the Fair Credit
failing
allege
complaint for
missed the
by failing
seq.,
15 U.S.C.
et
claim for
it was
plausible
relief. Because
for TransUn-
unreasonable
“follow
assure
interpret
ion to
accuracy” of the
maximum
an account for which a consum-
it to
*4
of credit
reports of authorized users
card
user,
affirm.
er is an authorized
we
accounts,
§§
id.
1681n. She al-
by Equifax
leged that the
used
I. BACKGROUND
to report
TransUnion
them
and
that led
ill,
parents
Kathleen
fell
Pedro’s
When
parents’
report
on
credit
her
her
they designated her as an authorized user
a
caused
credit
to reflect
debt
reports
her
Capital
their credit card account with
on
owe,
caused
she did not
which
turn
her
help
One.
used
card to
her
report
credit
and score
be inaccurate.
purchases
purchase
make
and to
parents
gravamen
complaint
The
Pedro’s
airline tickets
her
she used
visit
parents’
to list her
that was inaccurate
that,
alleged
parents.
as an
She
authorized
report
credit card account on her credit
user,
no fi-
“she never assumed and had
it implied
because
that she was liable on
any
on that
responsibility
nancial
debts
sought
account when
not. She
she was
card.”
damages,
damages,
statutory
at-
punitive
parents
their
When Pedro’s
died
fees,
torney’s
the certification
and
Capital One went into default.
account with
action.
class
January
On
Pedro received
monitoring
from a
alert
credit
service
Equifax moved to
Pedro’s com-
dismiss
her that
score had
informed
her credit
12(b)(6),
Fed. R.
Tran-
plaint,
Civ. P.
and
points
more than 100
on her
dropped
agencies
joined the
The
sUnion
motion.
Equifax
report. Pedro
discover-
credit
argued not -establish
Pedro could
dropped
score had
on
ed
her credit
willful violation of the Act because the
report,
de-
her TransUnion
and she
agencies
followed
parents’
that the
on
termined
default
her
interpretation of
Act. See
Ins.
Safeco
Capital One account caused the credit
47, 69,
Burr,
Am. v.
Co.
U.S.
drop.
(2007).
2201, 167
L.Ed.2d
The
S.Ct.
complained that the delin-
After Pedro
motion
granted
court
to dis-
district
affect-
quency
on her
account had
It
failed to
miss.
that Pedro
determined
credit, Capital One
ed her
removed Pedro
1681e(b)
allege a
of section
willful violation
not
from
But
did
the account.
it was
unreason-
because
account from Pedro’s credit
remove the
agencies
for the consumer
able
ac-
TransUnion instead listed the
report.
them to
to read section
report
nota-
count
with the
accounts for
about
relationship
tion “account
terminated.”
the consumer is an
user.
which
requested that
Capital
eventually
One
request,
at her
appealed,
and
Equifax
ac-
and
delete
appeal
Equifax.
from
reports,
count
Pedro’s credit
and the
dismissed her
as
II. STANDARD OF
The
REVIEW
“irreducible constitutional min
imum of standing”
consists
three ele
“We
de novo the
review
dismissal
fact, causation,
injury
ments:
and re-
complaint
of a
under Federal Rule of Civil
dressability. Lujan v.
Wildlife, 504
Defs. of
12(b)(6)
Procedure
for failure
to state
555, 560-61,
U.S.
112 S.Ct.
claim
allegations
and construe all the
(1992).
L.Ed.2d
TransUnion contends
Dawn, Inc.,
true.” Feldman v. Am.
standing
Pedro lacks
because she
2017).
“A plain
prove
failed to
that she
an injury
suffered
tiff
allege
plausibly
must
all the elements
in fact.
disagree.
We
Conclusory
claim
allega
for relief.
“An injury
legal
sufficient for
tions and
are not suffi
stand
conclusions
ing purposes is ‘an invasion of a
cient;
legally
plaintiff[
a claim
] must state
(a)
protected interest which is
concrete
plausible
relief
its face.”
Id. at
(b)
particularized,
actual or immi
(citations
quotation
and internal
nent,
conjectural
or hypothetical.’”
omitted).
marks
plausi
“A claim
facial
Cause/Ga.,
Common
that traditionally has been A. Alleged Pedro That She providing English a basis for a lawsuit in Suffered in Fact. Injury or Id. Congress American And courts.” may legally cogni of “elevate the status Article III of the Constitution of concrete, injuries de injuries zable jurisdic United “restricts the facto States inadequate that previously were law.” tion of the to litigants federal courts who (alteration (quoting Lujan, Id. adopted) standing Nicklaw v. sue.” Citi- 2145). 504 at 112 at An U.S. S.Ct. (11th Mortgage, Inc., 1001 839 F.3d injury “particularized” if it “affect[s] 2016). Cir. requirement This threshold plaintiff personal way.” in a and individual be indepen “must prior addressed to and Id. at 504 (quoting Lujan, U.S. at 560 of a party’s dent the merits of claims.” n.1, at S.Ct. Common Billups, v. 554 F.3d Cause/Ga. (11th 2009) (citation alleged injury Cir. omit is both Pedro ted). Pedro, party invoking alleged as the particular. federal concrete and Pedro a jurisdiction, of harm proving injury “bears the burden concrete caused because omitted). (citation by of standing.” alleged Id. the Act—the violation of whom the Id. reporting inaccurate relates.” about monitoring added). to a disagree. Pedro’s credit ser (emphasis We relationship to vice—-has a close the harm To establish that the, publication by defamatory of caused with, to comply failed information, long provided which has Tran- must establish that English a basis lawsuit Ameri knowingly recklessly vio sUnion either or. See, (First) e.g,, of can courts. Restatement that section. Levine Fin. lated World (Am. g § 569 Law Inst. Torts cmt. Bank, Nat’l Network it is (explaining per “actionable se” (11th Safeco, see also U.S. Cir. publish a false statement another 56-57, ageney at at An 127 S.Ct. 2208. debts”). to pay his Pedro also “refus[ed] recklessly if it takes an violates the Act alleged injury a concrete because she al only action that “is not a under violation a ... leged attempting that she “lost time reading terms, the statute’s Palm resolve credit inaccuracies.” Cf. risk company but that the shows ran Center-Boca, Inc. v. John G. Beach Golf greater than violating law-substantially D.D.S., Sarris, P.A., 1245, 1252- reading the risk with associated that was 2015) (explaining merely Safeco, 551 U.S. careless.” occupation during of a fax machine A at 2215. S.Ct. constitut transmission fax an unwanted adopts reading the Act alleged concrete And injury). ed a Pedro’s Indeed, is “not unreasonable” injuries personally. affected her points judicial prece based of the dropped her credit score as a on the text dent, challenged guidance result conduct. Because or from administrative alleged injury that she suffered an agencies raising “falls well short fact, pursue she has standing ‘unjustifiably high violating risk’ *6 complaint. necessary liability.” statute reckless Id. for. 70, at at re S.Ct. 2216. A consumer 127 B. Complaint Pedro's Failed porting agency adopts objectively that an to State Claim. reading of Act does not the reasonable Congress the Fair Credit enacted n.20, knowingly the Id. at 70 violate Act. to Reporting Act “fair and accurate ensure contrary 2216 127 S.Ct. at n.20. So to 1681(a)(1). § reporting.” 15 U.S.C. adopted if argument, Pedro’s TransUnion pursuit of Act goal, “imposes In this the interpretation an .of the Act that was not requirements concerning of cre the host unreasonable, objectively not look will Spok- of reports,” ation use consumer Levine, subjective at its See 554 intent. eo, 1545, any con 136 at S.Ct makes (declining F.3d at consider 1319 to the reporting agency willfully fails sumer that subjective reporting intent of a consumer comply requirements of to with these one with an “act[ed] it in accord when respect to that a consumer liable to with objectively interpretation the or actual, statutory, punitive Act”). 1681n(a). § 15 damages, ar U.S.C. adopted interpretation gues that' that Act was reasonable. 1681e(b) which states inter-; TransUnion.,could reasonably have reporting that a consumer “[w]henever the,Act .report to preted it that agency prepares report it shall a consumer par- on her user was follow reasonable assure it ents’ credit possible accuracy card,, account because could maximum the infor of “maxi- concerning mation have understood individual about the standard
1281
accuracy,” 15
greatest
mum
U.S.C.
extent within the
power
only
§
require
that
the consumer
TransUn-,
reporting agency. See Max
imum,
technically
ion
information that is
Webster’s New International Dic
accurate,
interpretation
objec
(2d
1961)
is
tionary
1517
ed.
(defining
That
unreasonable
it has a
tively
because
“foun
“maximum”
“[greatest
in
or
quantity
in
statutory
dation
text and a suffi highest in degree
attained”);
attainable or
ciently
justification.”
convincing
Safeco,
id. at 1927 (defining “possible” as “[w]ith-
69-70, 127
atU.S.
at 2216.
551
S.Ct.
powers
performance
attain
ment”); id.
(defining
at 17
“accuracy” as
Courts have offered two definitions of
error”).
“freedom .from -mistake or
That
possible accuracy,”
“maximum
15 U.S.C.
is,
true,
being
addition
the informa
1681e(b).
Some
that
courts
ruled
tion
not misleading.
must
be
But the less
only
requires
standard
re
stringent
approach
accuracy
technical
agencies
porting
report information that is
foundation
text. Several
accurate;”
is,
“technically
courts have
require only
read
Act to
is not
Heupel
false.
v. Trans Union
accuracy. Heupel,
technical
193
LLC,
(N.D.
F.Supp.2d
F.Supp.2d
Ala.
1240; Grant,
692;
at
F.Supp,
2002);
TRW, Inc.,
see Grant v.
789 F.Supp.
McPhee,
F.Supp.
Although
at 497-98.
(D.
1992);
692 Md.
accord McPhee v.
disagree
courts
reading,
other
with that
(D.
Corp.,
Chilton
F.Supp.
Dalton,
e.g.,
257 F.3d at
where
approach,
Conn.
Under
Tran-
divided,
courts
are
was not objectively
complied
sUnion
the Act when it
with
re
unreasonable, for TransUnion to
ported that Pedro was an authorized user
read
Act
require
only
accuracy,
technical
on her
that infor
account because
cf.
Servs.,
Murray
Cingular
v. New
was
Wireless
mation
true. Other courts have ruled
Inc.,
(7th
F.3d
section'
Cir.
requires
that credit
(Easterbrook,
J.) (determining
agencies
report information that
interpretation
reporting agency
of a
“technically
and not mis
both
accurate”
“conspicuous”
six-point type
included
leading or incomplete.
Dalton v. Capi
See
Indus., Inc.,
ap
where courts of
tal Associated
peals disagreed
interpretation of
(4th
on the
2001);
Schmidt,
Cir.
Pinner
“conspicuous”).
reading
1258, 1261,
Because
Ko
*7
adopted by
Bureau,
TransUnion “has a
Inc.,
foundation
ropoulos v. Credit
(D.C.
a
statutory
sufficiently
text and
37,
1984).
Cir.
ap
Under this
convincing justification
persuaded,
to have
proach,
complied
TransUnion
with the Act
it,”
[multiple
Safeco, 551
adopt
to
reported
courts]
it
when
Pedro was an
that
au
69-70,
2205,
U.S. at
that
thorized user on
S.Ct.
parents’
only
her
reading
objectively
was not
unreasonable
misleading
if that information
not
or
was
though
disagree
it:
even
with
incomplete.
we
n
any authority
Pedro also
to
fails
cite
Although
reading
the better
of the Act
that “might
[TransUnion]
have warned
that
requires
credit
be both accu-
reports
70,
away from
took.”
it
Id. at
and not
view
misleading,
say
rate
we cannot
judicial prece-
S.Ct. at
reading
2216.
cites no
require only
that
the Act
tech-
to
agency guidance
dent or
that
accuracy
that states
objectively
nical
was
unreason-
“maximum,”
reporting
for
“pos-
The
accounts
able.
definitions of
about
information
sible,”
which
“accuracy” suggest
a
an
that
is
authorized user
consumer
reported
information
a
fails to meet
by
consumer re-
the standard
maximum
agency
porting
contrary,
free from error
To the
accuracy.
must be
at least
not
for TransUnion
it is
unreasonable
district
that
one
held
informa
to list authorized user
that
inaccurate
determine
information about a
to
Bailey Equi
v.
report.
on a credit
See
tion
card account
an individual
credit
for which
Servs., LLC,
13-10377, 2013
No.
authorized
concerns that individ-
is an
user
Info.
fax
(E.D.
1,
July
at *6
Mich.
WL
Although
that she was
ual.
Pedro asserts
par-
financially
for
on her
not
hable
debts
account,
credit card
her name was on
ents’
inter-
adopted
TransUnion
Because
card
account and
the credit
to
objective-
Act
not
she used
of the
that was
pretation
unreasonable,
willfully
purchases.
it
ly
make
It was reasonable
did
violate
that
reasonable
requirement
it follow
to
that information
TransUnion
determine
possi-
to assure the maximum
procedures
the account
Pedro.
about
concerned
information.
accuracy
reported
ble
“[wjillfulness
Finally,
argues
interpret the
reasonably
could
question
a
fact almost never suitable
it
report
to
information
Act
dismiss,”
to resolution
a motion to
but
technically
that Pedro was
accurate:
disagree.
may,
District courts
and often
parents’
user of her
an authorized
do,
pleadings
determine
card account. TransUnion could
failed to
plaintiff
plead willfulness when
it
requirement
interpretation
of the relevant statute
to assure
adopt
agency
the consumer
was not
by
reporting
if,
possible accuracy
under
maximum
v.
King
unreasonable. See
Mov
interpretation of the
ieTickets.com, Inc.,
F.Supp.2d
reported
it
met the standard
(S.D.
2008);
Fla.
v.
1342-43
Horsch Wells
possible accuracy.
maximum
F.Supp.3d
Home
Fargo
Mortg.,
Pedro contends that TransUnion willful-
(E.D.
Pa.
see
Shlahtichman
ly violated
even under
Contacts,
Inc.,
1-800
795-
v.
F.3d
accuracy,
but she
approach
technical
2010)
(affirming
Cir.
identify any
re-
fails
false information'
of a
where it was ob
complaint
dismissal
by
She maintains
ported
TransUnion.
for an
inter
jectively reasonable
of her
delinquencies
the credit
pret
provision
Fair and Accurate
on her
cannot be
parents
report
apply
Transactions Act not
Credit
“technically
it caused
accurate” because
receipts);
Tommy Hilfiger
Long
email
report
history
her credit
the credit
list
U.S.A.,
(3d
Inc.,
other
of someone
than her. But TransUn-
(same).
although
And
Pedro states
cred-
ion listed
information on Pedro’s
Manage
that Hinkle v. Midland Credit
with the
“authorized
notation
ment,
establishes that willfulness is
Inc.
user,”
and Pedro
that she was
admits
never
on a motion to
almost
resolvable
user of
account.
dismiss,
reporting agency
re-
the information
Because
*8
adopted
not
it
argue
Hinkle did
that
had
true, it
ported was
met the standard
objectively
interpretation of
accuracy.
technical
(11th
Act.
1283 accurate, technically formation was ing ‘accuracy’ that the “distinction between and such as Pedro’s status as an authorized possible accuracy”’ ‘maximum “quite as user on credit card account. dramatic”); v. Capital Dalton Associated That was un- interpretation Inc., (4th Indus., 257 415 F.3d Cir. Act, on based text of the 2001) (“A report is inaccurate when it is judicial guidance precedent, and from ad- ‘patently incorrect’ or it is when ‘mislead agencies. ministrative Because TransUnio'n a ing way such such and to an extent adopted interpretation of the Act that that can expected it to [have be an] ad reasonable, was effect”) (citation omitted); verse []’ Koro did not violate the Act. Bureau, Inc., poulos v. Credit 734 F.2d (D.C. 1984) (“We 40 n.4 Cir. think it clear CONCLUSION IY. Congress Act to meant the address We AFFIRM dismissal of Pedro’s than technically more inaccurate re complaint. Schmidt, ports.”); Pinner 805 v. F.2d (5th Cir. Gorman v. Wol cf. ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge, Abramson, LLP, poff & concurring: (9th 2009) (discussing the differ I agree panel opinion. I with the write ence between [in]accura[cy]” ] “technical though, separately, in more address opining “inaccurate” while and depth the issues appeal some of raises. meaning phrase investigation “if the incomplete finds that the or information is I. inaccurate,” found within U.S.C. A. 1681s-2(b)(l)(D)). § previously have twin We described the Rather, language based goals of the Reporting Fair Credit FCRA, phrase and the purpose seq., “ensuring §§ et U.S.C. courts have that “maxi- these determined [credit-reporting] agencies imposed proce- possible means that a accuracy” mum re- ... ‘fair dures that and equitable were or port incomplete. not be misleading must consumer,’ ... that also met the [and] Cortez, 709; Dalton, See 617 F.3d at ‘needs commerce’ accurate 415; 40-44; Koropoulos, F.3d at F.2d at reporting.” Accep- Gen. Cahlin Motors Pinner, 805 1262-63. As F.2d at Cir, tance Corp., 936 F.2d report “A explained, Fourth Circuit has 1681(b)). § To- (quoting U.S.C. misleading inaccurate ... when it is ends, § wards those U.S.C. way extent such a and such an requires re- “[w]henever expected can be have an adverse effect.” porting agency prepares consumer re- Dalton, (alteration, quota- port it shall follow reasonable omitted). marks, tion and citation accuracy possible assure maximum effectively concerning Judge Fong succinctly the information the individual report about whom the relates.” explained practical important dif- ference between a is “techni- Here, meaning dispute concerns the cally one that has “maxi- accurate” and “maximum within accuracy” possible accuracy”: mum it’s difference 1681e(b). All four have Circuits that person “report[ing] between opined that it phrase agreed on this *9 in a card scam” and “re- ‘involved’ credit something means more than “technical ac- Union, in fact of LLC, porting] that he -was one the curacy.” v. See Trans Cortez (3d 2010) (describ- scam.” 617 F.3d 709 victims of the Alexander Moore 1284 (citation (D. inaccuracy.”) against Assocs., Inc., such F.Supp. 952 553
& omitted). Pinner, quotation at marks see also Haw. Judge Fong’s explanation, as 1263 (quoting B. Swoager v. Credit Bureau
quoted mind, Petersburg, F.Supp. consider Greater St. these standards X With (M.D. 1985)); Cortez, F.3d at Fla. of Pedro’s TransUnion’s whether Judge s reliance Pinner' information on (quoting delinquent account parents’ Fong’s explanation). the “maxi- report satisfied Pedro’s credit First, accuracy” possible mum standard. 1681e(b) speaks § of “maxi- though But óf the inclusion we must assess whether qualifies it possible accuracy,” mum misleading in a harm- information was the possi- required “maximum the the limits way. Clearly, it ful was. accuracy.” credit-reporting A ble procedures True, to that Pedro only reported “reasonable need follow accuracy.” par- on her only an user assure maximum was U.S;C. 1681e(b).- also asserted ents’ account. TransUnion that those during argument oral who use Circuit has District Columbia The from the reports would understand the bal language impose a construed this to to her au- TransUnion used code at 42. Koropoulos, 734 F.2d ancing test. not Pedro was status that thorized-user test, balancing the Under this for her de- financially responsible “weights] potential informa significantly, the re- linquent account. But misleading impression tion will create give to no port appears indication availability against of more accurate information including caused complete] the burden information and [or drop more’than 100 score Pedro’s credit (quot Id. providing such information.” 100-point-plus drop points. That —due 952) Alexander, (quota ing F.Supp. at in that no fault Pedro’s—harmed omitted). greater po The tion marks ability ... obtain cred- her “reduc[ed] (meaning, greater “the to mislead tential it, obtaining cost of ... increased] ... can cause the information] the harm [the secure, able to that she was such credit consumer”) readily and thé more available opportunities, and economic los[t] [her] information,” higher the re “clarifying ¶ Compl., 30. creditworthiness.” los[t] [her] provide porting agency’s burden accurately re- Yet information did (quoting information. Id. Alex clarifying In- personal flect creditworthiness. 952) ander, F.Supp. (quotation at deed, the information almost as soon as omitted). But on marks the other side removed, rating credit re- Pedro’s coin, reporting agency un need “prior level.” Id. at turned to its excellent provide clar a búrdensome task dertake ¶ 29. misleading ifying information when “the goals insignificant that FCRA’s include relatively is of have said information We equity while agency’s procedures are fairness and value” and meeting the needs of commerce still (quoting reasonable. Id. Alexan otherwise reports. in credit Re- der, (quotation information F.Supp. marks accurate at omitted); Cortez, ac- “authorized user” porting delinquent see also financially user is not of a counts (“Judging where the reasonableness debt, indicating for the without responsible reporting agency’s involves including such potential harm from how weighing the inaccu the credit score meets score affects safeguarding racy against the burden *10 Rather, stating goal. neither the consum- score both with without
er’s credit and America, UNITED of STATES financially is not accounts for she which Plaintiff-Appellee, (cid:127)responsible gives consumer and those fairest, rely reports who on most accurate, misleading picture and least reason, for credit. this consumer’s And Nakey WHITE, Demetruis purposes much better satisfies the Defendant-Appellant. FCRA than the issue practice
here. No. 14-14044 Non-Argument Calendar analysis.
But end We must also consider burden States Appeals, United Court of provide TransUnion to such Eleventh Circuit. uniquely its reports. Filed:
possesses necessary the information 08/24/2017 procedure evaluate such the burden reason, place
would on it. For that this
part stat- inquiry whether Pedro'
ed a claim that TransUnion violated be for inappropriate often will stage. resolution at motion-to-dismiss B; Albin, Billingsley, Ramona Michael . Felton, Office, John Attorney’s U.S B. II. Vance, University Joyce White Alabama Law, AL, for Birmingham, School Plain Here, this though, we need remand tiff-Appellee. matter for further district proceedings alleges only because Pedro Gibson, Barnett, Tobia M. James Sabra my And for willful violation. the reasons Butler, Defender, Kevin L. Federal Public colleague explained, she cannot show Oswald, Lee Deanna Federal Public De- that. AL, fender-NAL, Huntsville, for Defen-
dant-Appellant. CARNES, Judge, ED
Before Chief TJOFLAT, HULL, MARCUS, WILSON, MARTIN, JORDAN, PRYOR, WILLIAM ROSENBAUM, CARNES, JULIE PRYOR, Judges.* JILL Circuit BY THE COURT: having rehearing A petition been a member of Court in active filed * Newsom, Judge joined poll who Court en Kevin C. that was conducted this case. banc August participate did not in the