Complaint
- Date
- 2023-05-10
Summary
A complaint in Logan Douglas Shaner v. SageStream, LLC and LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., filed May 10, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, as Document 1509 under Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA. The complaint brings claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., against both defendants as consumer reporting agencies. It alleges that the defendants place deceased notations on credit reports based on furnisher codes without verifying that consumers are in fact deceased, and do not provide a credit score for such consumers. Its counts include a claim that defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681g by failing to provide the plaintiff's credit disclosure. The 30-page complaint seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages and fees, demands a jury trial, and is signed by counsel Joseph P. McClelland.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 1 of 30
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
LOGAN DOUGLAS SHANER,
Plaintiff,
vs. CASE NO.:
JURY TRIAL
SAGESTREAM, LLC, and DEMANDED
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS,
INC.,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
Logan Douglas Shaner (“Plaintiff”) brings this Complaint against
SageStream, LLC (“SageStream”) and LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.
(“LexisNexis”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. The computerization of our society has resulted in a revolutionary
increase in the accumulation and processing of data concerning individual
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 2 of 30
American consumers. Data technology, whether it is used by businesses, banks,
the Internal Revenue Service or other institutions, allows information concerning
individual consumers to flow instantaneously to requesting parties. Such timely
information is intended to lead to faster and better decision-making by its recipients
and, in theory, all of society should ultimately benefit from the resulting
convenience and efficiency.
2. However, unfortunately this information has also become readily
available for, and subject to, mishandling and misuse. Individual consumers can
and do sustain substantial damage, both economically and emotionally, whenever
inaccurate or fraudulent information is disseminated and/or obtained about them.
In fact, Defendant acknowledges this potential for misuse and resulting damage
every time they sell their credit monitoring services to a consumer.
3. The ongoing technological advances in the area of data processing have
resulted in a boon for the companies that accumulate and sell data concerning
individuals’ credit histories and other personal information. Such companies are
commonly known as consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”).
4. These CRAs sell information to readily paying subscribers (i.e.,
retailers, landlords, lenders, potential employers, and other similar interested
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 3 of 30
parties), commonly called “consumer reports,” concerning individuals who may
be applying for retail credit, housing, employment, or a car or mortgage loan.
5. Since 1970, when Congress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (“FCRA”), federal law has required CRAs to implement and
utilize reasonable procedures “to assure maximum possible accuracy” of the
personal, private, and financial information that they compile and sell about
individual consumers.
6. One of the primary purposes in requiring CRAs to assure “maximum
possible accuracy” of consumer information is to ensure the stability of our
banking system:
The banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit
reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the
banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the
public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the
banking system.
See 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(1).
7. The preservation of one’s good name and reputation is also at the heart
of the FCRA’s purposes:
[W]ith the trend toward computerization of billings and the
establishment of all sorts of computerized data banks, the individual is
in great danger of having his life and character reduced to impersonal
“blips” and key-punch holes in a stolid and unthinking machine which
can literally ruin his reputation without cause, and make him
unemployable or uninsurable, as well as deny him the opportunity to
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 4 of 30
obtain a mortgage or buy a home. We are not nearly as much concerned
over the possible mistaken turn-down of a consumer for a luxury item
as we are over the possible destruction of his good name without his
knowledge and without reason. * * * [A]s Shakespeare said, the loss of
one’s good name is beyond price and makes one poor indeed (emphasis
added).
Bryant v. TRW, Inc., 689 F.2d 72, 79 (6th Cir. 1982) [quoting 116 Cong. Rec.
36570 (1970)].
8. The FCRA also requires CRAs to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation
to determine whether information disputed by consumers is inaccurate and record
the current status of the disputed information, or delete the disputed information,
before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the CRA
receives the notice of dispute from the consumer. This mandate exists to ensure
that consumer disputes are handled in a timely manner and that inaccurate
information contained within a consumer’s credit report is corrected and/or deleted
so as to not prevent said consumer from benefiting from his or her credit and
obtaining new credit.
9. In light of these important findings and purposes, Congress specifically
noted “a need to insure that [CRAs] exercise their grave responsibilities with
fairness, impartiality, and respect for the consumer’s right to privacy.” See 15
U.S.C. § 1681(a)(4).
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 5 of 30
10. This action seeks actual, statutory, and punitive damages, costs and
attorneys’ fees for Plaintiff against Defendant for their willful and/or negligent
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., as described
herein.
THE PARTIES
11. Plaintiff Logan Douglas Shaner (“Plaintiff”) is a natural person who
resides in the State of Delaware, and is a “consumer” as that term is defined in 15
U.S.C. § 1681a(c).
12. Defendant SageStream, LLC (“SageStream”) is a limited liability
company that resides in the State of Georgia, including in this District.
13. SageStream is a “consumer reporting agency” as defined in 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681a(f). SageStream is regularly engaged in the business of assembling,
evaluating, and disseminating information concerning consumers for the purpose
of furnishing consumer reports, as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d) to third parties.
14. Defendant LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. (“LexisNexis”) is a limited
liability company and resides in the State of Georgia, including in this District.
15. LexisNexis is a “consumer reporting agency” as defined in 15 U.S.C. §
1681a(f). is regularly engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating, and
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 6 of 30
disseminating information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing
consumer reports, as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d) to third parties.
16. LexisNexis is also a “reseller” as defined at 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(u),
which is a “consumer reporting agency that—(1) assembles and merges
information contained in the database of another consumer reporting agency or
multiple consumer reporting agencies concerning any consumer for purposes of
furnishing such information to any third party, to the extent of such activities; and
(2) does not maintain a database of the assembled or merged information from
which new consumer reports are produced.”
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 1681p, which allows claims under the FCRA to be brought
in any appropriate court of competent jurisdiction.
18. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)
because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims
occurred in this District.
19. Plaintiff mailed multiple written disputes regarding inaccurate
information in Plaintiff's SageStream credit report to SageStream located in Fulton
County; Atlanta, Georgia.
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 7 of 30
20. Defendant SageStream received Plaintiff's multiple written disputes in
Fulton County; Atlanta, Georgia.
21. Defendant SageStream then processed the dispute results at its National
Consumer Assistance Center in Atlanta, Georgia, and mailed Plaintiff its final
dispute results from Atlanta, Georgia.
FACTS
The Credit Bureau Defendants’ Practices Concerning the Sale of Credit
Reports on the “Deceased”
22. Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis sells millions of consumer
reports (often called “credit reports” or “reports”) per day, and also sell credit
scores.
23. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), consumer reporting agencies, like
Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis, are required “to follow reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning
the individual about whom the report relates.”
24. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b and 1681e(a), consumer reporting
agencies, like Defendants, must maintain reasonable procedures to assure that
reports are sold only for legitimate “permissible purposes.”
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 8 of 30
25. Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis routinely places a “deceased”
notation or marking on credit reports when they are advised by any of their many
data furnishing sources (such as banks and debt collectors) that a given consumer
is deceased.
26. Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis’ furnishing sources identify
“deceased” consumers by marking the “status” of such consumer’s responsibility
for any subject account with an “X” code in the “ECOA” field of an electronic data
input format used in the credit reporting industry, known as Metro or Metro 2.
27. Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis do not request or require a
death certificate from any of their data sources which advise that a consumer is
“deceased” before placing a “deceased” mark in that consumer’s credit file.
28. Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis do not request or require any
proof from any data source which advises that a consumer is “deceased” showing
that the consumer is, in fact, deceased before placing a “deceased” mark on that
consumer’s report.
29. Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis do not independently verify
with any source or furnisher that a consumer is, in fact, deceased before placing a
“deceased” mark on that consumer’s report.
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 9 of 30
30. In some cases, in order to assure accuracy, Defendants SageStream and
LexisNexis may send letters and/or other communications to consumers when
certain information that may be considered suspicious or unreliable is furnished
about said consumers to be placed in their credit files, such as in cases where
consumers have a freeze or fraud alert on their credit report, or in accordance with
certain state laws, such as the consumer laws of Colorado. Defendants SageStream
and LexisNexis do not have any procedure to notify consumers (such as a next of
kin or executor or administrator of the consumer’s estate) when an “X” deceased
code is furnished to it to be placed in said consumer’s credit file or report.
31. Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis regularly receive the “Death
Master File” from the Social Security Administration, including weekly and/or
monthly updates, listing by social security number those consumers that the
government believes to be deceased. But Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis
do not cross-reference the “X” code received from data furnishers with the Death
Master File in order to determine whether any given consumer reported as
deceased via a furnishing source is also on the Death Master File before selling a
credit report about said consumer, or at any time.
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 10 of 30
32. Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis will only use the Death Master
File to sell additional products for an additional fee, which are designed to show
whether a given consumer is truly deceased.
33. Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis do not employ any procedures
at all to assure that a consumer with a “deceased” mark on their report is, in fact,
actually deceased before placing the “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report
and selling that report for profit.
34. Even in instances where other data on the face of the consumer’s report
indicates that he/she is not deceased, Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis do
not employ any procedures to assure that a consumer with a “deceased” mark on
their report is, in fact, actually deceased before placing the “deceased” mark in that
consumer’s file.
35. Even in instances where the purportedly deceased consumer
communicates directly with Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis, Defendants
SageStream and LexisNexis do not employ any procedures to assure that a
consumer with a “deceased” mark on their report is, in fact, actually deceased
before placing the “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report.
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 11 of 30
36. Once a “deceased” mark is placed upon a consumer’s report,
Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis will not calculate and will not provide a
credit score for that consumer.
37. Upon Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis’ reports with a
“deceased” mark sold to third parties, Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis
never calculate or provide a credit score for that consumer and instead reports that
consumer’s credit score as “N/A.”
38. Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis know that third party credit
issuers require a credit score in order to process a given credit application.
39. Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis know that consumers without
credit scores are unable to secure any credit from most credit issuers.
40. Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis know that living consumers
are routinely turned down for credit specifically because they are reporting them
as “deceased” and without a credit score.
41. Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis have been put on notice for
years through consumer disputes and lawsuits that living, breathing consumers are
turned down for credit specifically because they are reporting them as “deceased”
and without a credit score.
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 12 of 30
42. Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis have received and documented
many disputes from consumers complaining that their credit reports had them
erroneously marked as “deceased.”
43. Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis know that thousands of
consumers are erroneously marked as “deceased” on their credit reports via an
erroneous furnishing of the “X” code, even when said consumers (and their dates
of birth and social security numbers) are not on the Death Master File and are, in
fact, alive.
44. Nevertheless, Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis do not employ
any procedures to assure that a consumer marked as “deceased” on their credit
reports is, in fact, deceased.
45. Even consumers who dispute the erroneous “deceased” status on their
credit report continue to be erroneously marked as deceased unless the furnishing
source which provided the erroneous “X” code in the first instance decides to
change the code.
46. Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis do not have any independent
procedure to change an erroneous deceased status on their own and will merely
parrot their furnishing source in the case of a reinvestigation into the accuracy of
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 13 of 30
the deceased status upon a consumer’s report, a reinvestigation which is triggered
by a consumer dispute.
47. Nor do Defendants employ any procedures to limit or stop the
furnishing of reports to third parties for consumers that they have marked as
“deceased” under any circumstances.
48. For years after a consumer’s actual death, Defendants will continue to
sell credit reports about that consumer.
49. Defendants will only remove a deceased consumer’s file from their
respective credit reporting databases when it is no longer valuable to them—
meaning that no one is continuing to purchase reports about that consumer.
50. Defendants charge third parties a fee for reports with a mark that a
consumer is deceased (“reports on the deceased”) as they would for any other
report.
51. Defendants profit from the sale of reports on deceased consumers.
52. Defendants have in their credit reporting database many “deceased”
tradelines corresponding to distinct credit files for individual consumers that they
have marked as “deceased.”
53. Defendants know that truly deceased consumers do not apply for credit.
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 14 of 30
54. Defendants know that the credit information and reports of truly
deceased persons are used by criminals to commit identity theft or credit fraud.
Indeed, identity theft using the personal identifying information of deceased
consumers is known to Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis to be a common
and major source of identity theft.
55. Defendants know that identity theft and credit fraud are serious and
widespread problems in our society.
56. Defendants warn the relatives of truly deceased consumers that identity
theft can be committed using the credit reports and information of the deceased,
and require relatives to provide a death certificate or executorship papers, among
other forms of proof, before accessing the deceased consumer’s credit information
or report.
57. Defendants have no similar death certificate, executorship paper, or any
other proof requirements for their data sources, which report a consumer as
deceased or for the purchasers of their reports who access the purportedly deceased
consumer’s information.
58. Defendants sell reports on supposedly deceased consumers to third
parties in an automated fashion and without any specific or general certification
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 15 of 30
that could reasonably explain a “permissible purpose” for purchasing or using a
(supposedly) deceased consumer’s credit history and/or report.
59. For consumers who are deceased, there rarely, if ever, exists a
permissible purpose under the FCRA for Defendants to sell their credit reports,
absent a court order.
60. Defendants know that such reports contain a vast amount of personal
identifying and credit account information on the supposedly deceased consumer,
information that can be used to commit identity theft or for other fraudulent
purposes.
Guitar Center Denies Plaintiff Credit Due to Inaccurate Credit Reporting
May 31, 2022
61. On or about May 31, 2022, Plaintiff attempted to obtain credit for store
credit and submitted a credit application.
62. Shortly thereafter, in or about May 31, 2022, Guitar Center denied
Plaintiff’s credit application based upon the contents of his credit report.
63. Specifically, Plaintiff was reported as deceased on his credit report.
64. Plaintiff takes great pride in his good name and established credit rating
and works hard to ensure that his bills are paid in-full and on-time each month.
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 16 of 30
Plaintiff believes and understands that his credit record with his creditors is good,
so Plaintiff could not imagine how his credit application had been denied.
Plaintiff’s Dispute with LexisNexis on October 25, 2021
65. On or about October 25, 2021, feeling even more shocked, surprised,
and embarrassed because of Defendants’ inaccurate reporting, Plaintiff mailed a
written dispute via certified mail to LexisNexis, disputing the deceased notation in
his credit report. Plaintiff requested that LexisNexis reinvestigate the disputed
information, correct the reporting, and send corrected copies of his credit report.
66. Plaintiff’s October 25, 2021dispute specifically included his full name,
date of birth, Social Security number, and current address so that the credit bureaus
would be able to properly identify and locate his credit file.
The Credit Bureaus’ Method for Considering Consumer Credit Report
Disputes
67. The credit industry has constructed a method of numeric-alpha codes
for considering consumer credit report disputes. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(D).
68. The credit bureaus, Equifax, Experian, Trans Union, and Innovis, have
thus created the Online Solution for Complete and Accurate Reporting, or e-
OSCAR, as the credit industries’ standard of performance. e-OSCAR allows the
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 17 of 30
credit bureaus to create and data furnishers to respond to disputes initiated by
consumers by routing credit reporting agency-created prompts for automated
consumer dispute verifications to the appropriate data furnishers. e-OSCAR
utilizes a numeric-alpha language specific to the credit reporting industry.
69. That lexicon or unique language is commonly referred to in the credit
reporting industry as “Metro II.” It is also known industry wide as the CDIA’s
“Credit Reporting Resource Guide.”
70. Metro II is driven by numeric codes that translate into specific alpha
representations about consumers’ creditworthiness and character that will
ultimately appear on credit reports issued to third parties who make credit,
insurance, rental, and employment decisions regarding consumers.
71. Metro II codes are used on an industry wide form known within the
credit industry as an Automated Consumer Dispute Verification (“ACDV”)
electronic form.
72. The ACDVs have many fields in their body for use in effecting
thorough and complete communications between data furnishers and the credit
reporting agencies.
73. These ACDV “fields” have various titles for the many substantive areas
into which the Metro II codes can be entered.
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 18 of 30
74. Upon receiving a dispute from a consumer, the credit bureaus have an
automated system that prepares ACDVs that are sent to each of the data furnishers
that are reporting the credit accounts disputed by a consumer.
75. The data furnishers then have an obligation under the FCRA to conduct
a reasonable reinvestigation with respect to the disputed credit account and review
all relevant information provided by the consumer with the dispute to determine
whether the disputed credit account information is accurate and/or belongs to the
disputing consumer. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b).
76. Once the data furnisher completes its reinvestigation, it will code the
ACDV accordingly, representing either that the disputed account was verified as
accurate and belonging to the disputing consumer, updating information related to
the account, or deleting the account entirely, and return the ACDV to the respective
credit bureau(s) via e-OSCAR.
LexisNexis’s Response to Plaintiff’s October 25, 2021 Dispute
77. Defendant LexisNexis did not respond to Plaintiff’s dispute.
78. Defendant LexisNexis did not indicate that Plaintiff’s dispute was
found to be frivolous or irrelevant.
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 19 of 30
79. Defendant LexisNexis failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of
Plaintiff’s dispute, or any reinvestigation whatsoever, to determine whether the
disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed
information, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).
80. Defendant LexisNexis failed to provide the requested credit disclosure
in violation of 1681g.
Plaintiff’s Dispute with LexisNexis and SageStream on February 18, 2022
81. On or about February 18, 2022, feeling even more shocked, surprised,
and embarrassed because of Defendants’ inaccurate reporting, Plaintiff mailed a
written dispute via certified mail to LexisNexis and SageStream, disputing the
deceased notation in his credit report. Plaintiff requested that LexisNexis and
SageStream reinvestigate the disputed information, correct the reporting, and send
corrected copies of his credit report.
82. Plaintiff’s February 18, 2022 dispute specifically included his full
name, date of birth, Social Security number, and current address so that the credit
bureaus would be able to properly identify and locate his credit file.
LexisNexis’s Response to Plaintiff’s February 18, 2022Dispute
83. Defendant LexisNexis did not respond to Plaintiff’s dispute.
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 20 of 30
84. Defendant LexisNexis did not indicate that Plaintiff’s dispute was
found to be frivolous or irrelevant.
85. Defendant LexisNexis failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of
Plaintiff’s dispute, or any reinvestigation whatsoever, to determine whether the
disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed
information, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).
86. Defendant LexisNexis failed to provide the requested credit disclosure
in violation of 1681g.
SageStream’s Response to Plaintiff’s February 18, 2022Dispute
87. Defendant SageStream did not respond to Plaintiff’s dispute.
88. Defendant SageStream did not indicate that Plaintiff’s dispute was
found to be frivolous or irrelevant.
89. Defendant SageStream failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of
Plaintiff’s dispute, or any reinvestigation whatsoever, to determine whether the
disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed
information, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).
90. Defendant SageStream failed to provide the requested credit disclosure
in violation of 1681g.
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 21 of 30
91. In the last two years, Plaintiff has disputed the Defendants' reporting
him as deceased, causing credit denials, which will be further identified during
discovery.
92. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis
were acting by and through their agents, servants, and/or employees who were
acting within the course and scope of their agency or employment, and under the
direct supervision and control of the Defendants herein.
93. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of Defendants SageStream
and LexisNexis, as well as that of their agents, servants, and/or employees, was
intentional, willful, reckless, and in grossly negligent disregard for federal law and
the rights of Plaintiff herein.
94. As a result of the “deceased” annotations contained throughout
Plaintiff’s credit reports, Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis made it
practically impossible for Plaintiff to obtain credit.
95. As a standard practice, Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis do not
conduct independent investigations in response to consumer disputes. Instead, they
merely parrot the response of the furnisher despite numerous court decisions
admonishing this practice. See Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220, 225
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 22 of 30
(3d Cir. 1997) (“The ‘grave responsibilit[y]’ imposed by § 1681i(a) must consist
of something more than merely parroting information received from other sources.
Therefore, a ‘reinvestigation’ that merely shifts the burden back to the consumer
and the credit grantor cannot fulfill the obligations contemplated by the statute.”);
Apodaca v. Discover Fin. Servs., 417 F. Supp. 2d 1220, 1230–31 (D.N.M. 2006)
(noting that credit reporting agencies may not rely on automated procedures that
make only superficial inquiries once the consumer has notified it that information
is disputed); Gorman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 2008 WL 4934047, at *6
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2008).
96. Consistent with their standard policies and procedures, Defendants
SageStream and LexisNexis automatically generated their “investigation” results
once the aforementioned furnishers provided their responses to Plaintiff’s disputes,
verifying that Plaintiff was deceased, and no employee from any of the credit
bureaus took any additional steps to review Plaintiff’s documentation, information,
or the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) Death Master File, which
Defendants purchase from the SSA, after the furnishers provided their responses
to Plaintiff’s disputes.
97. Instead, Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis blindly accepted the
aforementioned furnishers’ incomplete version of the facts and continued to report
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 23 of 30
the inaccurate, derogatory information on Plaintiff’s credit reports, namely, that he
is deceased.
98. Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis continue the practice of
parroting the response from furnishers even though they have been repeatedly sued
for failing to conduct reasonable investigations as required by the FCRA.
99. Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis do not intend to modify their
dispute-processing procedures because doing so would drastically increase their
operating expenses.
100. Instead, Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis intentionally choose
not to comply with the FCRA to lower their costs. Accordingly, Defendants’
violations of the FCRA are willful.
101. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis
were acting by and through their agents, servants, and/or employees who were
acting within the course and scope of their agency or employment, and under the
direct supervision and control of the Defendants herein.
102. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of Defendants SageStream
and LexisNexis, as well as that of their agents, servants, and/or employees, were
intentional, willful, reckless, and in grossly negligent disregard for federal law and
the rights of Plaintiff herein.
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 24 of 30
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)
Failure to Follow Reasonable Procedures to Assure Maximum Possible
Accuracy
103. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in
Paragraphs 1-96 as if fully stated herein.
104. The FCRA mandates that “[w]henever a consumer reporting agency
prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure
maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about
whom the report relates.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
105. On multiple occasions, Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis
prepared patently false consumer reports concerning Plaintiff.
106. Despite actual and implied knowledge that Plaintiff is not dead,
Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis readily sold such false reports to one or
more third parties, thereby misrepresenting Plaintiff, and ultimately, Plaintiff’s
creditworthiness.
107. Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)
by failing to establish or to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 25 of 30
possible accuracy in the preparation of the credit reports and credit files they
published and maintain concerning Plaintiff.
108. As a result of Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis’s conduct,
action, and inaction, Plaintiff suffered damage by loss of credit; loss of the ability
to purchase and benefit from his1 credit; being chilled from seeking credit
opportunities; the expenditure of time and money disputing and trying to correct
the blatantly inaccurate credit reporting; and emotional distress including the
mental and emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment of credit
denials, fear of financial difficulty, and the inability to obtain credit for important
life purchases.
109. Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis’s conduct, action, and inaction
were willful, rendering them liable for actual or statutory damages, and punitive
damages in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §
1681n. In the alternative, it was negligent, entitling Plaintiff to recover under 15
U.S.C. § 1681o.
110. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from Defendants
SageStream and LexisNexis in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant
to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and/or § 1681o.
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 26 of 30
COUNT II
15 U.S.C. § 1681i
Failure to Perform a Reasonable Reinvestigation
(Second Claim for Relief Against Defendants)
111. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in
Paragraphs 1-96 as if fully stated herein.
112. The FCRA mandates that Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis
conduct an investigation of the accuracy of information “[i]f the completeness or
accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer’s file” is disputed by
the consumer. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1). The Act impose a 30-day time
limitation for the completion of such an investigation. Id.
113. The FCRA provides that if Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis
conduct an investigation of disputed information and confirm that the information
is in fact inaccurate, or are unable to verify the accuracy of the disputed
information, they are required to delete that item of information from the
consumer’s file. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(A).
114. On multiple occasions during 2021 and 2022, Plaintiff sent written
disputes to Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis, pleading with them to comply
with their statutory reinvestigation obligations and correct and/or delete specific
items in his1 credit files that are patently inaccurate, misleading, and highly
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 27 of 30
damaging to him and his ability to obtain credit, namely, references to him being
“deceased.”
115. Either Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis conducted no
investigation of Plaintiff’s disputes, or such investigations were so shoddy as to
allow patently false and highly damaging information to remain in Plaintiff’s credit
files, namely, the deceased notations.
116. Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681i on
multiple occasions by failing to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine
whether the disputed information was inaccurate and record the current status of
the disputed information, or delete the disputed information, before the end of the
30-day period beginning on the date on which they received the notices of dispute
from Plaintiff; and by failing to maintain reasonable procedures with which to filter
and verify disputed information in Plaintiff’s credit files.
117. As a result of Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis’s conduct,
action, and inaction, Plaintiff suffered damage by loss of credit; loss of the ability
to purchase and benefit from his credit; being chilled from seeking credit
opportunities; the expenditure of time and money disputing and trying to correct
the blatantly inaccurate credit reporting; and emotional distress including the
mental and emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment of credit
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 28 of 30
denials, fear of financial difficulty, and the inability to obtain credit for important
life purchases.
118. Defendants SageStream and LexisNexis’s conduct, action, and inaction
were willful, rendering them liable for actual or statutory damages, and punitive
damages in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §
1681n. In the alternative, it was negligent, entitling Plaintiff to recover under 15
U.S.C. § 1681o.
119. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from Defendants
SageStream and LexisNexis in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant
to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and/or § 1681o.
COUNT III
15 U.S.C. § 1681g
Failure to Provide Disclosures to Plaintiff
120. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in
Paragraphs 1-132 as if fully stated herein.
121. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681g by failing to provide Plaintiff’s
credit disclosure after each request.
122. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff
suffered damage by loss of credit; loss of the ability to purchase and benefit from
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 29 of 30
Plaintiff’s credit; detriment to Plaintiff’s credit rating; the expenditure of time and
money disputing and trying to correct the inaccurate credit reporting; and
emotional distress including the mental and emotional pain, anguish, humiliation,
and embarrassment.
123. Defendants’ conduct, action, and inaction was willful, rendering them
each separately liable for actual or statutory damages, and punitive damages in an
amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. In the
alternative, it was negligent, entitling Plaintiff to recover under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.
124. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs from Defendants
in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and/or
§ 1681o.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:
a) Determining that Defendants negligently and/or willfully violated the
FCRA;
b) Awarding Plaintiff actual damages, statutory, and punitive damages as
provided by the FCRA;
Case 1:23-mi-99999-UNA Document 1509 Filed 05/10/23 Page 30 of 30
c) Awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by
the FCRA; and
d) Granting further relief, in law or equity, as this Court may deem
appropriate and just.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
125. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.
Dated: May 10, 2023
/s/ Joseph P. McClelland
Joseph P. McClelland
LAW FIRM OF JOSEPH P.
MCCLELLAND, LLC
Georgia Bar No: 483407
235 East Ponce de Leon Avenue,
Suite 215
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (770) 775-0938
Fax: (470) 468-0070
Email: joseph@jacksonlaws.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.gand.310324.1509.0.pdf
- Size
- 310,765 bytes
- SHA-256
- 55b0d32d58f4ec7f2ec3b573b53f22a5e65bc8fcf46e803349fea76b184a5434
- Original
- www.courtlistener.com