Ritz v. Equifax Information Services

Statement of the Issue

Whether the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), requires a furnisher to investigate the factual accuracy of reported information, or also to assess and resolve legal disputes.

Introduction and Summary of Argument

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) and the entities that furnish information to them—called furnishers—have a duty to investigate whether disputed information in a credit file is “accura[te].” 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681i(a)(1)(A), 1681s-2(b)(1). If the information is “inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified,” it must be modified or removed. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(E). For years, courts around the country have held that the FCRA requires furnishers and CRAs to investigate and remove factually inaccurate information, but not to correctly resolve all legal disputes about a debt. 

This case illustrates why. Plaintiffs leased a car from Nissan. The lease required them to “return” the car to a Nissan dealership at the end of the lease period; if they instead “ke[pt] possession” of the car, they would be assessed a monthly fee. Nissan informed Plaintiffs of the process for returning their car, which included a mandatory vehicle inspection and related paperwork. On the final day of their lease term, Plaintiffs brought their car to a Nissan dealership without scheduling an inspection. The dealership refused to accept the return without the mandatory inspection and paperwork. So Plaintiffs threw down their keys, left the car, and stormed off. Nissan then charged a monthly fee, concluding that because Plaintiffs had not completed the requisite steps for returning a vehicle, they had not in fact “return[ed]” it under the terms of the lease. Plaintiffs refused to pay the fee, and Nissan informed CRAs that Plaintiffs had been delinquent on their payment. Rather than litigate that contract dispute directly, Plaintiffs sued Nissan under the FCRA for furnishing “inaccurate” information about their debts. Plaintiffs, joined by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as amicus, argue that the FCRA requires furnishers like Nissan not merely to investigate potential factual errors but also to correctly resolve legal disputes.2 They are wrong: credit personnel must get to the bottom of factual inaccuracies, not choose the right side on debatable legal arguments. That conclusion accords with the FCRA’s text, structure, purpose, and history. The contrary proposal advanced by Plaintiffs and the Bureau is neither sensible nor workable. 

Download the amicus brief to read the full text.