Complaint
- Date
- 2023-10-26
Summary
A complaint filed October 26, 2023 by Jasmine M. Ferguson against LexisNexis Risk Solutions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM, Document 1. The complaint brings claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and describes LexisNexis as a consumer reporting agency under 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f). It sets out allegations about mixed or merged credit files and about the company's practices for placing a deceased notation on credit reports. The final count alleges a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681g for failing to provide the plaintiff's credit disclosure after each request. The prayer for relief seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and the complaint demands a jury trial; it runs 36 pages.
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-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 1 of 36
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
JASMINE M. FERGUSON,
Civil Action No.:
Plaintiff,
vs. JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
Jasmine M. Ferguson, (“Plaintiff”), a living, breathing consumer, brings this
Complaint against LexisNexis Risk Solutions (“LexisNexis”) 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
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
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 2 of 36
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. Defendant LexisNexis is a CRA as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f).
5. These CRAs sell information to readily paying subscribers (i.e.,
retailers, landlords, lenders, potential employers, and other similar interested
parties), commonly called “consumer reports,” concerning individuals who may
be applying for retail credit, housing, employment, or a car or mortgage loan.
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 3 of 36
6. 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.
7. 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).
8. 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
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
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 4 of 36
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)].
9. 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.
10. 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).
11. This action seeks actual, statutory, and punitive damages, costs and
attorneys’ fees for Plaintiff against Defendant for their willful and/or negligent
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 5 of 36
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., as described
herein.
THE PARTIES
12. Plaintiff Jasmine M. Ferguson (“Plaintiff”) is a natural person who
resides in the State of Ohio, and is a “consumer” as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681a(c).
13. Defendant LexisNexis Risk Solutions (“LexisNexis”) is a limited
liability company that resides in the State of Georgia and in the Northern District.
14. LexisNexis is a “consumer reporting agency” as defined in 15 U.S.C. §
1681a(f). LexisNexis 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.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15. 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.
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 6 of 36
16. 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.
17. Plaintiff mailed multiple written disputes regarding inaccurate
information in his LexisNexis credit report to LexisNexis located in Fulton County;
Atlanta, Georgia.
18. Defendant LexisNexis received Plaintiff's multiple written disputes in
Fulton County; Atlanta, Georgia.
19. Upon receipt of Plaintiff's disputes, Defendant LexisNexis forwarded
such disputes to furnishers via Automated Consumer Dispute Verification
electronic forms. Upon completion of its investigations furnishers responded to
Defendant LexisNexis' electronic communications, which originated from Atlanta,
Georgia, by sending its results electronically to Defendant LexisNexis in Fulton
County; Atlanta, Georgia
20. Defendant LexisNexis then processed the dispute results from
furnishers at its National Consumer Assistance Center in Atlanta, Georgia, and
mailed Plaintiff its final dispute results from Atlanta, Georgia.
FACTS
Summary of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 7 of 36
21. The FCRA governs the conduct of consumer reporting agencies in an
effort to preserve the integrity of the consumer banking system and to protect the
rights of consumers to fairness and accuracy in the reporting of their credit
information.
22. The purpose of the FCRA is to require consumer reporting agencies to
“adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer
credit, personal, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and
equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy,
and proper utilization of such information….” 15 U.S.C. § 1681(b).
23. The FCRA further requires that when preparing consumer reports a
consumer reporting agency must 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).
The Credit Bureau’s Processing of Credit Information
24. Defendant regularly receives information from various sources around
the country including banks, credit unions, automobile dealers, student loan
providers, public information vendors, and others.
25. These sources are known as “furnishers” within the credit reporting
industry and under the FCRA.
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 8 of 36
26. Defendant collects information from thousands of furnishers.
27. The process by which Defendant receives, sorts, and stores information
is largely electronic.
28. Furnishers report credit information to Defendant through the use of
coded tapes that are transmitted on a monthly basis through software known as
Metro 2.
29. Defendant takes the credit information reported by furnishers and
creates consumer credit files.
30. Defendant maintains credit files on millions of consumers.
31. Credit files are updated electronically by the furnishers to reflect new
information regarding the reported accounts (sometimes referred to within the
industry as “tradelines”).
LexisNexis’ Mixed File Problem
32. Defendant knows that different consumers can have similar names.
33. Defendant knows that different consumers can have similar Social
Security numbers.
34. Defendant knows that different consumers with similar names can also
have similar Social Security numbers.
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 9 of 36
35. Defendant knows that public records often do not contain identifying
information such as Social Security numbers or dates of birth.
36. Defendant matches tradelines and public records to a consumer credit
file by comparing the information about the consumer associated with the tradeline
or public record to the information they maintain about the consumer in the
consumer’s credit file or files.
37. Defendant accomplishes this matching of credit information to
consumer credit files through the use of certain matching algorithms or database
rules.
38. Sometimes Defendant’s matching algorithms matches information
belonging to one consumer to the credit file of another consumer; resulting in what
is commonly known in the industry as a mixed or merged credit file.
39. Mixed files are not a new phenomenon. In fact, as long ago as the early
1990s, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) (the government agency charged
with enforcement of the FCRA), entered into individual Consent Decrees with each
of the three major CRAs, Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union, regarding their
significant failures and deficiencies with respect to mixed files.
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 10 of 36
40. Despite Defendant’s long-standing and specific knowledge of the
mixed file problem, Plaintiff’s credit report was still generated by Defendant
containing information belonging to another consumer.
41. A mixed or merged credit file is the result of Defendant inaccurately
mixing personal identifying information and credit information and/or an entire
credit file belonging to one consumer into the credit file of another consumer.
42. There are many different possible causes for the mixing of credit files
but all of them relate in one way or another to the algorithms (the database rules)
used by Defendant to match personal identifying information and credit
information, including public record information, to a particular consumer’s credit
file.
43. The success or failure of these algorithms and rules is both a function
of the rules themselves and of the information provided by the furnishers of the
tradeline information to Defendant.
44. A mixed consumer report could be caused by an improper algorithm
just as it could be caused by the inaccurate reporting of a consumer’s personal
“indicative” information (e.g., name, Social Security number, address, date of
birth, etc.) by the furnishers to Defendant.
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 11 of 36
45. These rules also determine which credit files are selected by the
algorithm and merged to create a complete consumer report.
46. Therefore, a mixed consumer report is sometimes the result of the
mixing of two or more consumer credit files belonging to different consumers into
one consumer report.
The Credit Bureau Defendant’s Practices Concerning the Sale of Credit
Reports on the “Deceased”
47. Defendant LexisNexis sells millions of consumer reports (often called
“credit reports” or “reports”) per day, and also sell credit scores.
48. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), consumer reporting agencies, like
Defendant LexisNexis, are required “to follow reasonable procedures to assure
maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about
whom the report relates.”
49. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b and 1681e(a), consumer reporting
agencies, like Defendant, must maintain reasonable procedures to assure that
reports are sold only for legitimate “permissible purposes.”
50. Defendant LexisNexis routinely places a “deceased” notation or
marking on credit reports when they are advised by any of their many data
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 12 of 36
furnishing sources (such as banks and debt collectors) that a given consumer is
deceased.
51. Defendant 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.
52. Defendant LexisNexis does 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.
53. Defendant LexisNexis does 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.
54. Defendant LexisNexis does 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.
55. In some cases, in order to assure accuracy, Defendant 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
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 13 of 36
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. Defendant LexisNexis does 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.
56. Defendant LexisNexis regularly receives 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 Defendant LexisNexis does 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.
57. Defendant 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.
58. Defendant LexisNexis does not employ any procedures at all to assure
that a consumer with a “deceased” mark on their report is, in fact, actually deceased
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 14 of 36
before placing the “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report and selling that
report for profit.
59. Even in instances where other data on the face of the consumer’s report
indicates that he/she is not deceased, Defendant LexisNexis does 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.
60. Even in instances where the purportedly deceased consumer
communicates directly with Defendant LexisNexis, Defendant LexisNexis does
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.
61. Once a “deceased” mark is placed upon a consumer’s report, Defendant
LexisNexis will not calculate and will not provide a credit score for that consumer.
62. Upon Defendant LexisNexis’s reports with a “deceased” mark sold to
third parties, Defendant LexisNexis never calculates or provides a credit score for
that consumer and instead reports that consumer’s credit score as “N/A.”
63. Defendant LexisNexis knows that third party credit issuers require a
credit score in order to process a given credit application.
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 15 of 36
64. Defendant LexisNexis knows that consumers without credit scores are
unable to secure any credit from most credit issuers.
65. Defendant LexisNexis knows that living consumers are routinely
turned down for credit specifically because they are reporting them as “deceased”
and without a credit score.
66. Defendant LexisNexis has 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.
67. Defendant LexisNexis has received and documented many disputes
from consumers complaining that their credit reports had them erroneously marked
as “deceased.”
68. Defendant LexisNexis knows 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.
69. Nevertheless, Defendant LexisNexis does not employ any procedures
to assure that a consumer marked as “deceased” on their credit reports is, in fact,
deceased.
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 16 of 36
70. Even consumers who dispute the erroneous “deceased” status on their
LexisNexis 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.
71. Defendant LexisNexis does 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 the deceased
status upon a consumer’s report, a reinvestigation which is triggered by a consumer
dispute.
72. Nor does LexisNexis 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.
73. For years after a consumer’s actual death, Defendant LexisNexis will
continue to sell credit reports about that consumer.
74. Defendant LexisNexis 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.
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 17 of 36
75. Defendant LexisNexis charges 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.
76. Defendant LexisNexis profits from the sale of reports on deceased
consumers.
77. Defendant LexisNexis has in their credit reporting database many
“deceased” tradelines corresponding to distinct credit files for individual
consumers that they have marked as “deceased.”
78. Defendant LexisNexis know that truly deceased consumers do not
apply for credit.
79. Defendant LexisNexis knows 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 Defendant LexisNexis to be a common and major source
of identity theft.
80. Defendant LexisNexis knows that identity theft and credit fraud are
serious and widespread problems in our society.
81. Defendant LexisNexis warns the relatives of truly deceased consumers
that identity theft can be committed using the credit reports and information of the
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 18 of 36
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.
82. Defendant LexisNexis has 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.
83. Defendant LexisNexis sells reports on supposedly deceased consumers
to third parties in an automated fashion and without any specific or general
certification that could reasonably explain a “permissible purpose” for purchasing
or using a (supposedly) deceased consumer’s credit history and/or report.
84. For consumers who are deceased, there rarely, if ever, exists a
permissible purpose under the FCRA for Defendant LexisNexis to sell their credit
reports, absent a court order.
85. Defendant LexisNexis knows 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.
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 19 of 36
Capital One Bank Denies Plaintiff Credit Card Due to Defendant LexisNexis’
Inaccurate Credit Reporting on March 25, 2022
86. On or about March 25, 2022, Plaintiff attempted to obtain credit for a
credit card and submitted a credit application.
87. Shortly thereafter, in or about March 25, 2022, Capital One Bank
denied Plaintiff’s credit application based upon the contents of Plaintiff’s credit
report.
88. Specifically, LexisNexis was reporting deceased on Plaintiff’s credit
report.
89. Plaintiff takes great pride in Plaintiff’s good name and established
credit rating and works hard to ensure that Plaintiff’s bills are paid in-full and on-
time each month. Plaintiff believes and understands that Plaintiff’s credit record
with Plaintiff’s creditors is good, so Plaintiff could not imagine how Plaintiff’s
credit application had been denied.
Plaintiff Sees that Defendant LexisNexis is Reporting Deceased on September
2, 2022
90. As of September 2, 2022, a deceased notation was reflected in the
Plaintiff’s LexisNexis credit report:
Date of Death: November 15, 2014
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 20 of 36
91. As of September 2, 2022, the above-referenced notation was reporting
inaccurately in Plaintiff’s LexisNexis credit report because Plaintiff is not
deceased.
Flexshopper, LLC Denies Plaintiff Credit Card Due to Defendant LexisNexis’
Inaccurate Credit Reporting on September 12, 2022
92. On or about September 12, 2022, Plaintiff sought to obtain credit for a
credit card and submitted a credit application.
93. Shortly thereafter, in or about September 12, 2022, Flexshopper, LLC
denied Plaintiff’s credit application based upon the contents of Plaintiff’s credit
report.
94. Specifically, LexisNexis was reporting deceased on Plaintiff’s credit
report.
95. Plaintiff takes great pride in Plaintiff’s good name and established
credit rating and works hard to ensure that Plaintiff’s bills are paid in-full and on-
time each month. Plaintiff believes and understands that Plaintiff’s credit record
with Plaintiff’s creditors is good, so Plaintiff could not imagine how Plaintiff’s
credit application had been denied.
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 21 of 36
Plaintiff’s Dispute with LexisNexis on September 13, 2022
96. On or about September 13, 2022, feeling shocked, surprised, and
embarrassed because of Defendant’s inaccurate reporting, Plaintiff mailed a
written dispute via certified mail/disputed by telephone to LexisNexis, disputing
the deceased notation in Plaintiff’s credit report. Plaintiff requested that
LexisNexis reinvestigate the disputed information, correct the reporting, and send
corrected copies of Plaintiff’s credit report.
97. Plaintiff’s September 12, 2022 dispute specifically included Plaintiff’s
full name, date of birth, Social Security number, and current address so that the
credit bureaus would be able to properly identify and locate Plaintiff’s credit file.
The Credit Bureaus’ Method for Considering Consumer Credit Report
Disputes
98. 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).
99. The credit bureaus, LexisNexis, 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 credit bureaus to create and data furnishers to respond to
disputes initiated by consumers by routing credit reporting agency-created prompts
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 22 of 36
for automated consumer dispute verifications to the appropriate data furnishers. e-
OSCAR utilizes a numeric-alpha language specific to the credit reporting industry.
100. 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.”
101. 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.
102. Metro II codes are used on an industry wide form known within the
credit industry as an Automated Consumer Dispute Verification (“ACDV”)
electronic form.
103. The ACDVs have many fields in their body for use in effecting
thorough and complete communications between data furnishers and the credit
reporting agencies.
104. These ACDV “fields” have various titles for the many substantive areas
into which the Metro II codes can be entered.
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 23 of 36
105. 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.
106. 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).
107. 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’ Response to Plaintiff’s September 2022 Dispute
108. Following the dispute, LexisNexis completed its reinvestigation of
Plaintiff’s dispute and returned the results of its 15 U.S.C. § 1681i dispute
reinvestigation to Plaintiff. LexisNexis failed to properly reinvestigate and delete
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 24 of 36
the deceased notation on the disputed credit account, which continued to appear on
Plaintiff’s LexisNexis credit report.
Plaintiff’s Mixed LexisNexis Credit File as of October 17, 2022
109. Upon information and belief, as of October 17, 2022, Plaintiff’s
LexisNexis credit report contained the following name, which belongs to another
consumer:
Jamie Ferfuson
110. Plaintiff’s LexisNexis credit report contained the following deceased
notation in the Plaintiff’s LexisNexis credit report:
Date of Death: November 15, 2014
111. Plaintiff’s LexisNexis credit report contained a social security number
which belongs to another consumer.
112. Defendant mixed another consumer’s personal and account information
into Plaintiff’s credit reports despite the fact that numerous discrepancies exist
between their personal identification information. The discrepancies that should
have caused Defendant to realize Plaintiff is not the same person as this other
consumer include the following:
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 25 of 36
a) Plaintiff’s legal name is Jasmine M. Ferguson and the personal and
account information Defendant mixed into Plaintiff’s credit reports
belongs to another consumer; and
b) Plaintiff’s Social Security number is different than the other
consumer’s Social Security number.
Capital One Bank Denies Plaintiff Credit Card Due to Defendant LexisNexis’
Inaccurate Credit Reporting on October 19, 2022
113. On or about October 19, 2022, Plaintiff sought to obtain credit for a
credit card and submitted a credit application.
114. Shortly thereafter, in or about October 19, 2022, Capital One Bank
denied Plaintiff’s credit application based upon the contents of Plaintiff’s credit
report.
115. Specifically, LexisNexis was reporting deceased on Plaintiff’s credit
report.
116. Plaintiff takes great pride in Plaintiff’s good name and established
credit rating and works hard to ensure that Plaintiff’s bills are paid in-full and on-
time each month. Plaintiff believes and understands that Plaintiff’s credit record
with Plaintiff’s creditors is good, so Plaintiff could not imagine how Plaintiff’s
credit application had been denied.
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 26 of 36
Plaintiff’s Dispute with LexisNexis on November 16, 2022
117. On or about November 16, 2022, feeling shocked, surprised, and
embarrassed because of Defendant’s inaccurate reporting, Plaintiff mailed a
written dispute via certified mail/disputed by telephone to LexisNexis, disputing
the deceased notation in Plaintiff’s credit report. Plaintiff requested that
LexisNexis reinvestigate the disputed information, correct the reporting, and send
corrected copies of Plaintiff’s credit report.
118. Plaintiff’s November 16, 2022 dispute specifically included Plaintiff’s
full name, date of birth, Social Security number, and current address so that the
credit bureaus would be able to properly identify and locate Plaintiff’s credit file.
LexisNexis’ Response to Plaintiff’s November 2022 Dispute
119. Defendant LexisNexis did not respond to Plaintiff’s dispute.
120. Defendant LexisNexis did not indicate that Plaintiff’s dispute was
found to be frivolous or irrelevant.
121. 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).
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 27 of 36
122. Defendant LexisNexis failed to provide the requested credit disclosure
in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681g.
123. In the last two years, Plaintiff has disputed the Defendant’s reporting
Plaintiff as deceased, causing credit denials, which will be further identified during
discovery.
124. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant LexisNexis was 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 Defendant herein.
125. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of Defendant 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.
126. As a result of the “deceased” annotations contained throughout
Plaintiff’s credit reports, Defendant LexisNexis made it practically impossible for
Plaintiff to obtain credit.
127. As a standard practice, Defendant LexisNexis does not conduct
independent investigations in response to consumer disputes. Instead, they merely
parrot the response of the furnisher despite numerous court decisions admonishing
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 28 of 36
this practice. See Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220, 225 (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).
128. Consistent with their standard policies and procedures, Defendant
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
Defendant purchases from the SSA, after the furnishers provided their responses
to Plaintiff’s disputes.
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 29 of 36
129. Instead, Defendant LexisNexis blindly accepted the aforementioned
furnishers’ incomplete version of the facts and continued to report the inaccurate,
derogatory information on Plaintiff’s credit reports, namely, that he is deceased.
130. Defendant LexisNexis continues 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.
131. Defendant LexisNexis do not intend to modify their dispute-processing
procedures because doing so would drastically increase their operating expenses.
132. Instead, Defendant LexisNexis intentionally choose not to comply with
the FCRA to lower their costs. Accordingly, Defendant LexisNexis’ violations of
the FCRA are willful.
133. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant LexisNexis was 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 Defendant herein.
134. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of Defendant 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.
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 30 of 36
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)
Failure to Follow Reasonable Procedures to Assure Maximum Possible
Accuracy
135. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in
Paragraphs 1-134 as if fully stated herein.
136. 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).
137. On multiple occasions, Defendant LexisNexis prepared patently false
consumer reports concerning Plaintiff.
138. Despite actual and implied knowledge that Plaintiff is not dead,
Defendant LexisNexis readily sold such false reports to one or more third parties,
thereby misrepresenting Plaintiff, and ultimately, Plaintiff’s creditworthiness.
139. Defendant LexisNexis violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to
establish or to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy
in the preparation of the credit reports and credit files they published and maintain
concerning Plaintiff.
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 31 of 36
140. As a result of Defendant LexisNexis’ conduct, action, and inaction,
Plaintiff suffered damage by loss of credit; loss of the ability to purchase and
benefit from his/her1 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.
141. Defendant LexisNexis’ conduct, action, and inaction was 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.
142. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from Defendant
LexisNexis in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §
1681n and/or § 1681o.
COUNT II
15 U.S.C. § 1681i
Failure to Perform a Reasonable Reinvestigation
(Second Claim for Relief Against Defendant LexisNexis)
143. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in
Paragraphs 1-134 as if fully stated herein.
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 32 of 36
144. The FCRA mandates that Defendant 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.
145. The FCRA provides that if Defendant 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).
146. On multiple occasions during 2020 and 2021, Plaintiff sent written
disputes to Defendant LexisNexis, pleading with them to comply with their
statutory reinvestigation obligations and correct and/or delete specific items in
his/her1 credit files that are patently inaccurate, misleading, and highly damaging
to him and his ability to obtain credit, namely, references to him being “deceased.”
147. Either Defendant 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.
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 33 of 36
148. Defendant 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.
149. As a result of Defendant 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 denials, fear of
financial difficulty, and the inability to obtain credit for important life purchases.
150. Defendant LexisNexis’ conduct, action, and inaction was 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.
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 34 of 36
151. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from Defendant
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
152. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in
Paragraphs 1-134 as if fully stated herein.
153. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681g by failing to provide Plaintiff’s
credit disclosure after each request.
154. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff
suffered damage by loss of credit; loss of the ability to purchase and benefit from
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.
155. Defendant’s 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.
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 35 of 36
156. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs from Defendant
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 Defendant negligently and/or willfully violated the
FCRA;
b) Awarding Plaintiff actual damages, statutory, and punitive damages as
provided by the FCRA;
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
157. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.
Dated: October 26, 2023
Case 1:23-cv-04912-VMC-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/26/23 Page 36 of 36
/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.321931.1.0_1.pdf
- Size
- 347,522 bytes
- SHA-256
- b99f2e6c326d40dbe85732def51bfb055252339c3836798040491a6f76ef9b5f
- Original
- www.courtlistener.com