Complaint (2024-12-17)

Date: 2024-12-17

Summary

A complaint and demand for jury trial in Eddie Jamaal Mixon v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., Case 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Greenville Division, filed December 17, 2024 as Doc 1. The plaintiff alleges that LexisNexis, as a consumer reporting agency, failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of his consumer reports, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). The complaint describes the problem of mixed files, in which another consumer's information appears in a person's file, and alleges that his file contained another consumer's personal identifying and automotive information. It seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n or § 1681o, plus attorneys' fees, and is signed by counsel Brian H. Herrington.

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: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 1 of 28 PagelD #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

GREENVILLE DIVISION
EDDIE JAMAAL MIXON,
Civil Action No. 4:24-CV-123-DMB-JMV
Plaintiff,
Honorable Judge:
Vv.
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC., JURY TRIAL
Defendant.

Eddie Jamaal Mixon (“Plaintiff or “Mr. Mixon”) a living, breathing 40 year-old consumer,
brings this action on an individual basis, against LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. (“Defendant” or
“LexisNexis”) for actual, statutory, and punitive damages and costs, and attorney’s fees, for
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et. seq.

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 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
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 2 of 28 PagelD #: 2

disseminated and/or obtained about them. In fact, Defendant acknowledges this potential for
misuse and resulting damage every time it sells its respective 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 Risk Solutions, Inc., together with non-parties Equifax
Information Services LLC (“Equifax”), Experian Information Solutions, Inc (“Experian”), and
Trans Union LLC (“Trans Union’), are four of the largest credit reporting bureaus in the United
States.

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,
insurance, or a car or mortgage loan.

6. Since 1970, when Congress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §
1681, et seg. (“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. “Credit is the lifeblood of the modern American economy, and for the American
consumer access to credit has become inextricably tied to consumer credit scores as reported by
credit reporting agencies.” Burke v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 2011 WL 1085874, at *1 (E.D. Va.
Mar. 18, 2011). “A credit report can determine everything from whether a person can secure a

credit card, purchase a home, win a new job, or start a small business.” Dep’t of Agric. Rural Dev.
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 3 of 28 PagelD #: 3

Rural Hous. Serv. v. Kirtz, 601 U.S. 42, 45 (2024).
8. Congress made the following findings when it enacted the FCRA in 1970:

(a) 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.

(b) An elaborate mechanism has been developed for
investigating and evaluating the credit worthiness, credit
standing, credit capacity, character, and general reputation
of consumers.

(c) Consumer reporting agencies have assumed a vital role in
assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other
information on consumers.

(d) There is a need to ensure that consumer reporting agencies
exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness,
impartiality, and a respect for the consumer’s right to
privacy.

15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(1-4).

9. Thus, one of the fundamental purposes of the FCRA is “to require that consumer
reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer
credit, personnel, 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 in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681(b).
Accordingly, “[t]he FCRA evinces Congress’ intent that consumer reporting agencies, having the
opportunity to reap profits through the collection and dissemination of credit information, bear
‘grave responsibilities.” Cushman v. Trans Union, 115 F.3d 220, 225 (3d Cir. 1997).

10. The preservation of one’s good name and reputation is also at the heart of the
FCRA’s purposes:

[With 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
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 4 of 28 PagelD #: 4

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. Shakespeare said, the loss of one’s good name is beyond
price and makes one poor indeed.

Bryant v. TRW, Inc., 689 F.2d 72, 79 (6th Cir. 1982) [quoting 116 cong. Rec. 36570 (1970)]
(emphasis added).

11. Since 1970, when Congress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as amended, 15
U.S.C. § 1681 et. seq., (“FCRA’”), the federal law has required CRAs to have in place and to utilize
reasonable procedures “to assure the maximum possible accuracy” of the personal and financial
information that they compile and sell about individual consumers.

12. 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.

13. ‘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).

14. The FCRA also requires furnishers of information, a creditor or other third party
that provides information about consumer to a CRA, upon notice, to conduct a reasonable

reinvestigation of all disputes with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information it
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 5 of 28 PagelD #: 5

provides to the CRAs regarding a consumer and modify, delete, or permanently block any items
of information found to be inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable after said reinvestigation is
completed.

15. Plaintiff brings claims against Defendant for failing to follow reasonable
procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiff's credit reports, in violation of
the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).

16. As part of this action, Plaintiff seeks actual, statutory, and punitive damages, costs
and attorneys' fees from the Defendant for its willful and/or negligent violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., as described herein.

PARTIES

17. Eddie Jamaal Mixon (“Plaintiff or “Mr. Mixon”) is a natural person residing in
Greenwood, Mississippi, and is a “consumer” as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).

18. Defendant LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. (“Defendant” or “LexisNexis”) is a
Delaware corporation doing business throughout the United States, including the State of
Mississippi and in this District, and has a principal place of business located at 1000 Alderman
Drive, Alpharetta, Georgia 30005. LexisNexis can be served at its registered agent, C T
Corporation System, located at 645 Lakeland East Drive, Suite 101, Flowood, Mississippi 39232.

19. 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

20. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 6 of 28 PagelD #: 6

15 U.S.C. § 1681p, which allows claims under the FCRA to be brought in any appropriate court
of competent jurisdiction.
21. 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 Plaintiffs claims occurred in this District.

FACTS
Summary of the Fair Credit Reporting Act

22. 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.

23. The FCRA was designed to protect consumers from the harmful effects of
inaccurate information reported in consumer reports (commonly referred to as “credit reports”).
Thus, Congress enshrined the principles of “fair and accurate credit reporting” and the “need to
ensure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness” in the
very first provision of the FCRA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a).

24. Specifically, the statute was intended to ensure that “consumer reporting agencies
adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel,
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. See
15 U.S.C. § 1681(b).

25. To that end, the FCRA imposes the following twin duties on consumer reporting
agencies: (i) consumer reporting agencies must devise and implement reasonable procedures to

ensure the “maximum possible accuracy” of information contained in consumer reports (15 U.S.C.
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 7 of 28 PagelD #: 7

§ 1681e(b)); and (ii) consumer reporting agencies must reinvestigate the facts and circumstances
surrounding a consumer’s dispute and timely correct any inaccuracies (15 U.S.C. § 168114).

26. The FCRA provides consumers with a private right of action against consumer
reporting agencies that willfully or negligently fail to comply with their statutory obligations under
the FCRA.

The “Mixed File” Problem

27. A recurring and known issue within the credit reporting industry is the creation of
“mixed files.”

28. A “mixed file” occurs when personal and credit information belonging to Consumer
B appears in one or more of Consumer A’s credit files.

29. The Federal Trade Commission defined a mixed credit file as a file that “refers to
a Consumer Report in which some or all of the information pertains to Persons other than the
Person who is subject to that Consumer Report.” F.7.C. v. TRW, Inc., 784 F. Supp. 361, 362 (N.D.
Tex. 1991).

30. “Mixed files” create a false description and representation of a consumer’s credit
history and result in the consumer not obtaining credit or other benefits of our economy.

31. | Defendant’s procedures for matching consumer information to a consumer report
often cause the mixing of one consumer with another.

32. Another consequence of mixed files is the resulting disclosure of a consumer’s most
personal identifying and financial information absent the consumer’s knowledge or consent, or
both. This occurs when a consumer’s file is mixed with that of another consumer, and either of
those consumers applies for credit, housing, insurance, or employment, and Defendant sells

information pertaining to one consumer in response to the application of the other. This violates
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 8 of 28 PagelD #: 8

the consumer’s privacy and also greatly increases their risk of identity theft.
The “Mixed File” Problem is Known to Defendant LexisNexis

33. | Mixed files are not a new phenomenon. CRAs like Defendant LexisNexis have
been on notice of the existence of mixed files.

34. In particular, CRAs have been on notice of the fact that procedures for creating
credit files, including matching algorithms, are prone to frequently cause mixed files, for over
thirty (30) years. See Thompson v. San Antonia Retail Merchants Ass’n, 682 F.2d 509, 511 (Sth
Cir. 1982).

35. CRAs like Defendant LexisNexis mix files even though every consumer has unique
personal identifying information, such as a Social Security number. That is so because their
systems allow information to be included in a consumer’s file even when the Social Security
number reported with the information is different from the Social Security number on the
consumer’s file.

36. | Defendant knows that its matching procedures are causing inaccurate consumer
reports, consumer disclosures, and mixed files.

37. Inthe 1990’s, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sued multiple national CRAs
because of their failure to comply with the FCRA including the mixing of consumers’ files.

38. In the 1990’s, the Attorneys General of numerous states sued multiple national
CRAs because of their failure to comply with the FCRA including the mixing of consumers’ files.

39. In 1991, non-party TRW, a predecessor of non-party Experian, signed a Consent
Order with the FTC. To prevent the occurrence or reoccurrence of a mixed file, TRW agreed to
use, for matching and identification purposes, a consumer’s full identifying information, defined

as full first and last name, full street address, zip code, birth year, any generational designation and
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 9 of 28 PagelD #: 9

social security number.

40. In 1992, non-party Trans Union signed a Consent Order with the Attorneys General
of 17 states. Non-Party Trans Union agreed that it would maintain reasonable procedures to
prevent the occurrence or reoccurrence of mixed files. For example, procedures during the
reinvestigation process include, assigning mixed file cases to Senior Investigators who, as
appropriate, must pull all files related to the consumer, fully verify disputed information, make
any changes, deletions or additions to correct the file and resolve the dispute, and prepare a
summary of the problem to be filed with another department for corrective action.

41. In 1992, non-party Equifax signed an Agreement of Assurances with the State
Attorneys General and agreed to take specific steps to prevent the occurrence of mixed files and
to adopt procedures designed specifically to reinvestigate consumer disputes resulting from mixed
files.

42. In 1995, non-party Equifax signed a Consent Order with the FTC. Non-party
Equifax agreed it would follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy
of the information on a consumer’s file including, but not limited to, procedures to detect logical
errors prior to reporting information on a consumer’s file, procedures to prevent mixing as a result
of data entry by third parties when the third party requests a consumer’s report, and procedures
during a reinvestigation specifically designed to resolve consumer disputes related to a mixed file.

43. To prevent the occurrence of a mixed file, national credit bureaus like non-parties
Experian, Equifax and Trans Union entered into agreements not to place information in a
consumer’s file (other than certain public record information) unless it has identified such
information by at least two of the following identifiers: (i) the Consumer’s name; (ii) the

Consumer’s Social Security number; (iii) the Consumer’s date of birth, or (iv) the Consumer’s
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 10 of 28 PagelD #: 10

account number with a Subscriber or a similar identifier unique to the Consumer.

44. Defendant LexisNexis, along with other CRAs, continue to repeatedly mix
consumers’ files despite the CRA agreements with the FTC and State Attorneys General and
hundreds of lawsuits filed against them by consumers whose files have been mixed.

45. | When those lawsuits have gone to trial, juries have found consumer reporting
agencies, willfully violated the accuracy and reinvestigation requirements of the FCRA - §§
1681e(b) and 16811 — and awarded punitive damages as high as $18 million. Yet the “mixed file”
problem continues.

46. For example, in 2015, the New York Attorney General filed charges and settled
claims with non-parties Equifax, Experian and Trans Union over mixed files.’ See In the Matter
of Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York v. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc.; Equifax Information Services, LLC; and Trans Union LLC.

47. | Non-party Equifax’s matching logic mixed two consumers’ files when only seven
out of the nine digits of the two consumers’ Social Security numbers matched. Apodaca v.
Discover Fin. Servs., 417 F. Supp. 2d 1220, 1224 (D.N.M. 2006).

48. In 2002, the jury in Judy Thomas v. Trans Union LLC, District of Oregon, Case
NO. 00-1150-JE, found Trans Union had willfully violated the FCRA by mixing Judy Thomas’s
personal and credit information with another consumer’s and failing to unmix them despite Ms.
Thomas’ numerous disputes. The jury awarded Ms. Thomas $300,000.00 in actual damages and

$5,000,000.00 in punitive damages.

' https://superiortradelines.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Press-Release.pdf (last visited Nov.
6, 2024); see also https://ag-

ny.gov/pdfs/CRA%20A greement%20Fully%20Executed%203.8.15.pdf Last visited May 17,
2022.

10
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 11 of 28 PagelD #: 11

49. —_ In 2007, the jury in Angela Williams v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Circuit
Court for Orange County Florida, Case No. 48-2003-CA-9035-0, awarded Angela Williams
$219,000.00 in actual damages and $2,700,000.00 in punitive damages for willfully violating the
FCRA by mixing Angela Williams with another consumer and failing to unmix them despite Ms.
Williams’ disputes.

50. Despite these verdicts and the ample notice available to Defendant, Defendant
continues to mix consumers’ credit files with other consumers’ credit files.

51. — In 2013, the jury in Julie Miller v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, District of
Oregon, Case No. 3:11-cv-01231-BR, awarded Julie Miller $180,000.00 in actual damages and
more than $18,000,000.00 in punitive damages for willfully violating the FCRA by mixing Julie
Miller with another consumer and failing to unmix them despite Ms. Miller’ numerous disputes.

52. A jury assessed a $60 million dollar verdict against Trans Union for mixing
innocent persons as terrorists and drug dealers by matching consumers with the Office of Foreign
Asset Control’s “terrorist alert” list based on first and last name alone. See Ramirez v. Trans Union,
LLC, No. 12-CV-00632-JSC, 2017 WL 5153280, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2017), aff'd in part,
vacated in part, rev’d in part sub nom. Ramirez v. TransUnion, LLC, 951 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir.
2020).

53. Despite these verdicts against consumer reporting agencies like Defendant,
Defendant continues to mix consumers’ credit files with other consumers’ credit files.

54. | Defendant has been sued hundreds of times wherein an allegation was made that
Defendant violated the FCRA, and many of those lawsuits have been on account of an alleged
mixed-file on the part of Defendant.

55. FCRA lawsuits have resulted in multi-million-dollar verdicts for consumers who

11
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 12 of 28 PagelD #: 12

fall victim to a mixed credit file.

56. “Evidence that a defendant has repeatedly engaged in prohibited conduct while
knowing or suspecting that it was unlawful would provide relevant support for an argument that
strong evidence is required to cure the defendant’s disrespect for the law.” Dalton v. CAI, 257 F.3d
409, 418 (4th Cir. 2001) (noting that whether “other consumers have lodged complaints similar to
Dalton’s against CAI” is relevant to willfulness under the FCRA). Moreover, repeated
noncompliance with statutory duties can establish that the defendants acted willfully. See Safeco
Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 53 (2007) (punitive damages can be awarded based on
“reckless disregard for a statutory duty”).

57. No less than three federal Courts of Appeal have held a consumer reporting agency
violates 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) and may be found to have willfully violated the FCRA when it mixes
a consumer’s file with another consumer.

58. Notably, the Federal Trade Commission has specifically warned consumer
reporting agencies to review their procedures when a mixed file occurs.

59. Despite federal and state law, Congressional mandate, federal and_ state
enforcement actions, and thousands of consumer lawsuits, mixed credit files remain a significant
problem for innocent consumers, including Plaintiff.

Defendant’s Practices Concerning the Sale of Reports on the “Deceased”

60. Defendant sells millions of consumer reports (often called “credit reports” or
“reports”’) per day.

61. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), consumer reporting agencies, like Defendant, are
required “to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the

information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.”

12
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 13 of 28 PagelD #: 13

62. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b and 1681e(a), consumer reporting agencies, like
Defendant, must maintain reasonable procedures to assure that consumer reports are sold only for
legitimate “permissible purposes.”

63. Defendant routinely places a “deceased” notation or marking on reports when it is
advised by any of its many data sources that a given consumer is deceased.

64. | Defendant does not request or require a death certificate from any of its data sources
which advise that a consumer is “deceased” before placing a “deceased” mark in that consumer’s
credit file.

65. | Defendant 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.

66. Defendant does not independently verify with any source that a consumer is in fact
deceased before placing a “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report.

67. In some cases, in order to assure accuracy, Defendant 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. Defendant does not have any procedure to
notify consumers (such as a next of kin or executor or administrator of the consumer’s estate) when
Defendant has received information suggesting the consumer is deceased before adding that
information to the consumer’s credit file or report.

68. The Social Security Administration (SSA) maintains the Death Master File

(“DMF”). The DMF is also known commercially as the Social Security Death Index (SSDI). The

13
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 14 of 28 PageID #: 14

SSA¶s DMF as of 2018 contained information on 111 million deaths that have been reported to

the SSA. The DMF is created from internal SSA records of deceased persons possessing social

security numbers and whose deaths were reported to the SSA. The DMF includes the following

information on each decedent, if the data are available to the SSA: social security number, name,

date of birth, and date of death.

69. Legislation (i.e., the Social Security Act) precludes the sharing of the full DMF

with non-benefits paying agencies.

70. Because of the wide use and demand for death records for a variety of industries,

SSA has partnered with the U.S. Department of Commerce¶s National Technical Information

Service (NTIS) to release the Limited Access Death Master File (³LADMF´) electronically on

a weekly and monthly basis.

71. The SSA receives death reports from many sources, including family members,

funeral homes, financial institutions, postal authorities, state information, and other federal

agencies. The SSA does not have a death record for all persons; therefore, the SSA does not

guarantee the veracity of the DMF. The SSA does not guarantee 100% of the data.

72. The SSA estimates that roughly 12,000 living people are added to the DMF

annually, potentially due to clerical error. An erroneous listing can lead to not only a cessation of

government benefits, but also the freezing of bank accounts, the inability to buy or rent property,

and mistaken accusations of identity theft.2

73. The Office of the Inspector General called the error rate ³very low,´but noted that

2
Aviva Dekornfeld (2018-06-20). ³The Plight of the Living Dead´. The Indicator from Planet
Money (Podcast); see also Bichell, Rae Ellen (2016-08-10). ³Social Security Data Errors Can
Turn People into the Living Dead´. National Public Radio.

14
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 15 of 28 PagelD #: 15

“SSA’s erroneous death entries can lead to mistaken benefit terminations and cause severe
financial hardship and distress to affected people...when errors like this occur, it can be a long and
difficult process to resurrect your financial health.

TA. Defendant does not have access to the full DMF from the SSA, but rather is a
subscriber to the NTIS LADMF.

75. Despite being a subscriber to the NTIS LADMF, Defendant does not cross-
reference the information it has received suggesting a consumer is deceased with the LADMF in
order to determine whether any given consumer reported as deceased via its source is also on the
LADMEF before selling a credit report about said consumer, or at any time.

76. Defendant fails to employ reasonable procedures that assure that a consumer is
actually deceased before placing the “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report and selling that
report for profit.

77. Even in instances where other data on the face of the consumer’s report indicates
that he/she is not deceased, Defendant does not employ any procedures to assure that a consumer
is in fact actually deceased before placing the “deceased” mark in that consumer’s file.

78. Even in instances where the purportedly deceased consumer communicates directly
with the Defendant, Defendant does not employ any procedures to assure that a consumer is in fact
actually deceased before placing the “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report.

79. Defendant knows that living consumers are routinely turned down for credit
specifically because they are reporting them as “deceased.”

80. | Defendant has been put on notice for years through consumer disputes and lawsuits

3 “Cases of Mistaken Death Reports Low but Costly | Office of the Inspector General, SSA”.
oig.ssa.gov. 2016-03-24. Archived from the original on 2020-07-16.

15
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 16 of 28 PagelD #: 16

that living, breathing consumers are turned down for credit specifically because Defendant is
inaccurately reporting them as “deceased.”

81. Defendant has received and documented many disputes from consumers
complaining that Defendant had erroneously marked them as “deceased” on their credit reports.

82. Defendant knows that thousands of consumers are erroneously marked as
“deceased” on their credit reports.

83. | Nevertheless, Defendant does not employ any procedures to assure that a consumer
is actually deceased before adding a “deceased” notation to that consumer’s credit reports.

84. | Defendant does not 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.

85. For years after a consumer’s actual death, Defendant will continue to sell credit
reports about that consumer.

86. | Defendant will only remove a deceased consumer’s file from its respective credit
reporting databases when it is no longer valuable to them—meaning that no one is continuing to
purchase reports about that consumer.

87. | Defendant 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.

88. Defendant profits from the sale of reports on deceased consumers.
89. | Defendant knows that truly deceased consumers do not apply for credit.
90. | Defendant 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 to be a common

and major source of identity theft.

16
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 17 of 28 PagelD #: 17

91. | Defendant knows that identity theft and credit fraud are serious and widespread
problems in our society.

92. Defendant 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.

93. | For consumers who are deceased, there rarely, if ever, exists a permissible purpose
under the FCRA for the Defendant to sell their credit reports, absent a court order.

94. Defendant 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.

Plaintiff Receives Notice of Deceased Reporting

95. In or about August 2024, Plaintiff set out to establish a more robust credit history,
recognizing the value of an established and good credit history. Plaintiff is a single father of two
young children and the only reliable source of income and support for his family. Plaintiff was
looking for opportunities to improve his credit so that he would be able to qualify for a loan to
renovate their home.

96. Inoraround August 2024, Plaintiff accepted an offer from Netspend to open a debit
account. Plaintiff had received offer letters from Netspend in the past, but now Plaintiff thought
opening this account was a good step to establish his creditworthiness.

97. After Plaintiff provided his personal information, Plaintiff's application was not
immediately approved.

98. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff called Netspend. A representative of Netspend

17
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 18 of 28 PagelD #: 18

requested information and additional documentation to verify Plaintiff's identity. Netspend
explained that it was unable to approve his application because he was reported as deceased.

99. Certainly, Plaintiff was not deceased. Plaintiff found that information to be very
distressing and confusing, even shocking.

100. Plaintiff informed the Netspend representative that he was not deceased. The
Netspend representative was unable to approve Plaintiff's application at that time, however,
Plaintiff could submit documents to Netspend online.

101. Onoraround August 29, 2024, Plaintiff called the SSA. The SSA agent confirmed
that the SSA was not being reported as deceased.

102. Plaintiff was disappointed at the denial, but Plaintiff assumed it was just some sort
of fluke and endeavored to continue to seek opportunities for credit.

Plaintiff Applied for a Capital One Credit Card in September 2024

103. In or about September 2024, Plaintiff was still set out to establish a more robust
credit history, recognizing the value of an established and good credit history.

104. Plaintiff reviewed varying credit card promotions and wanted to wait for the right
card for him.

105. Accordingly, in or about September 11, 2024, Plaintiff completed and submitted an
application with Capital One for a credit card.

Capital One Denies Plaintiff's Credit Card Application in September 2024

106. Capital One ordered a consumer report about Plaintiff from Defendant on or about
September 11, 2024.

107. Defendant published information about Plaintiff to Capital One in response to that

credit application on or about September 11, 2024.

18
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 19 of 28 PagelD #: 19

108. Upon receipt and review of Defendant’s report about Plaintiff, Capital One denied
Plaintiff's credit card application. Specifically, Capital One denied Plaintiff's credit card
application because Defendant reported that Plaintiff was deceased.

109. Upon information and belief, Capital One denied Plaintiffs credit card application
based upon the contents of a consumer report Defendant sold about Plaintiff.

110. Plaintiff was disappointed at the Capital One credit card denial. Certainly, Plaintiff
was not deceased. Plaintiff found that information to be very distressing and confusing, even
shocking.

111. Plaintiff was embarrassed to learn that Defendant had reported that Plaintiff was
deceased. Certainly, Plaintiff was not deceased. Plaintiff was very distressed at the continued
reporting of information suggesting he was deceased. Plaintiff was frustrated at the credit denial
because he very much needed the credit for his family. Plaintiff felt that the recipients of that
information no doubt questioned his motives and integrity and worst yet possibly suspected him
of identity theft as they could clearly discern that he was not deceased.

112. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 168le(b) by failing to establish or follow
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the credit information it published
and maintained concerning Plaintiff.

Plaintiff Applied for Insurance with Allstate Insurance in September 2024

113. In or about September 2024, Plaintiff needed to obtain car insurance.

114. Plaintiff reviewed varying insurance offers and policies and wanted to get the best
rate and coverage for him and his family.

115. For Allstate Insurance to evaluate Plaintiff’s creditworthiness, it would need to

obtain copies of his consumer files. Plaintiff provided Allstate Insurance with his personal

19
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 20 of 28 PagelD #: 20

identification information, including his Social Security number, and authorized it to obtain copies
of his consumer files.

116. Accordingly, in or about September 11, 2024, Plaintiff completed and submitted an
application with Allstate Insurance.

Allstate Insurance Denies Plaintiff's Application in September 2024

117. Allstate Insurance ordered a consumer report about Plaintiff from Defendant on or
about September 11, 2024.

118. Defendant published information about Plaintiff to Allstate Insurance in response
to that insurance application on or about September 11, 2024.

119. Upon information and belief, Allstate quoted Plaintiff an extremely high amount
for insurance based upon inaccuracies in a consumer report published by Defendant.

Plaintiff Applied for Insurance with Hugo Car Insurance in September 2024

120. After receiving Allstate Insurance’s very expensive quotation, Plaintiff decided to
seek car insurance elsewhere.

121. Plaintiff again reviewed varying insurance promotions and wanted to find the right
insurance for him and his family.

122. Plaintiff decided he would submit an application for insurance with Hugo Car
Insurance (“Hugo”). For Hugo to evaluate Plaintiff's creditworthiness, it would need to obtain
copies of his consumer files. Plaintiff provided Hugo with his personal identification information,
including his Social Security number, and authorized it to obtain copies of his consumer files.

123. Accordingly, in or about September 2024, Plaintiff completed and submitted an
application with Hugo Car Insurance for auto insurance.

LexisNexis Reports Plaintiff as Deceased to Hugo Car Insurance in September 2024

20
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 21 of 28 PagelD #: 21

124. Hugo Car Insurance ordered a consumer report about Plaintiff from Defendant on
or about September 24, 2024.

125. Defendant published information about Plaintiff to Hugo Car Insurance in response
to that auto insurance application on or about September 28, 2024.

126. Within Defendant’s report about Plaintiff, LexisNexis once again reported Plaintiff
as deceased. Despite LexisNexis reporting Plaintiff as deceased, Plaintiff was fortunately able to
obtain insurance through Hugo Car Insurance.

127. Upon information and belief, although Plaintiff's insurance application was
approved, Plaintiff was approved at less than favorable rates.

128. Despite the approval, Plaintiff was embarrassed and frustrated to learn that
Defendant had once again reported that Plaintiff was deceased. Certainly, Plaintiff was not
deceased. Plaintiff was very distressed at the continued furthering of information suggesting he
was deceased. Plaintiff once again felt that the recipients of that information no doubt questioned
his motives and integrity and worst yet possibly suspected him of identity theft as they could
clearly discern that he was not deceased.

Plaintiff Obtains His Consumer Report and Confirms that Defendant Was Reporting Him
as Deceased and Mixed with Another Consumer

129. Although Plaintiff was finally able to obtain insurance, he was deeply concerned
that some CRA was reporting Plaintiff as deceased.

130. Concerned about the impact of this continued reporting, on October 19, 2024,
Plaintiff obtained and reviewed his LexisNexis consumer report.

131. Upon reviewing the contents of Defendant’s consumer report, Plaintiff was
shocked at the appearance of several pieces of information that did not belong to Plaintiff at all.

132. The information Defendant LexisNexis about Plaintiff in Plaintiff's consumer

21
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 22 of 28 PagelD #: 22

report included numerous records and identification information that did not belong to Plaintiff.
Rather, those records and identification information belonged to two different consumers:
Plaintiffs father Eddie M. Mixon and a wholly unrelated consumer named Eddie Johnson.

133. For instance, in the “Identification Records” section Defendant LexisNexis
reported Plaintiff as deceased by indicating in the “Date of death” field the date — 05/19/2006. This
is the date his father passed away.

134. Defendant had every reason to know that Plaintiff did not die in May 2006 based
upon the many credit and insurance applications submitted by Plaintiff, the many credit accounts
opened and insurance policies taken out, and the many payments made since then.

135. Defendant LexisNexis further reported information belonging to his father in
Plaintiff’s consumer file, specifically, Plaintiff's father’s name, date of birth, date of death, and
employment records.

136. Upon closer review, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant was reporting several
pieces of personal identifying information, insurance claims, and driving records that did not

belong to him as follows:

A. Names:
e Eddie Johnson
e Eddie M Mixon
° Mixon Mixon
e Eddie M. Mixon
e M

B. Dates of Birth:

e 12/29/1985
12/01/9999
0
11/25/1949
11/01/1949

C. A date of death of 05/19/2006

22
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 23 of 28 PagelD #: 23

D. Addresses:

e 1139 Marshall St, Greenville, MS 38701-6227
2101 Hayes Rd 311 Apt, Houston, TX 77077-6927
8496 Dairy View Ln, Houston, TX 77072-3976
3325 Lariat Ln, Garland, TX 75042-5415
423 W Ohea St, Greenville, MS 38701-3638
2411 E Alexander St, Greenville, MS 38703-3318
864 Ashburn Rd, Greenville, MS 38703-6004
1016 Goethal St, Greenville, MS 38701-5614
80 E 101st St, Chicago, IL 60628-2006
2101 Hayes Rd 311, Houston, TX 77077-6927
345 S Theobald St 38701-4174

E, A business association with the Mississippi Forestry Commission

F. Phone Numbers:
e 317-546-7339
° 773-568-5157

G. One email address:
e ouintdeeO3 yahoo.com

H. An insurance policy belonging to Eddie Johnson with Commonwealth
Casualty

I. An automobile insurance claim:

Name of Claimant: Eddie Johnson
Driver’s License No.: XXXXX5489
Date of Claim: September 11, 2023
Claim Amount: $470

J. Driver’s license records from states Plaintiff never lived:
° Ohio
e Pennsylvania
e Virginia
e Louisiana

137. Plaintiff discovered that LexisNexis mixed Plaintiff's consumer file with the
consumer information of a wholly unrelated consumer named Eddie Johnson (“Johnson’”’) despite
the fact that Plaintiff has a different middle name, last name, birthday and year, driver’s license

number, and Social Security Number.

23
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 24 of 28 PagelD #: 24

138. Defendant LexisNexis mixed Plaintiff's file with Johnson’s consumer information
despite the fact that Plaintiff has a different address history from Johnson.

139. Defendant LexisNexis mixed Plaintiff's file with Johnson’s consumer information
despite the fact that Plaintiff's name is Eddie Jamaal Mixon and Johnson’s full name as reported
in Plaintiff’s LexisNexis report is Eddie Johnson (no middle name).

140. Defendant LexisNexis mixed Plaintiff's file with Johnson’s consumer information
despite the fact that Plaintiff and Johnson have different Social Security Numbers.

141. Defendant LexisNexis falsely attributed at least one automobile insurance claim to
Plaintiff.

142. Defendant LexisNexis published at least one consumer report to Capital One,
Allstate, and Hugo Insurance in response to Plaintiff’s credit and insurance applications.

143. Defendant LexisNexis took no steps whatsoever to review, analyze, or audit the
information in Plaintiff's consumer file prior to selling it.

144. Prior to selling the consumer reports about Plaintiff, Defendant LexisNexis did
nothing to reconcile the inconsistent information on the face of the consumer report.

145. Had Defendant LexisNexis taken any steps to investigate whether the information
in Plaintiff's consumer report belonged to Plaintiff before reporting the same to Plaintiff's potential
lenders and insurers, it would have easily verified that the information it attributed to Plaintiff
actually belonged to Plaintiffs father Eddie M. Mixon and a wholly unrelated consumer named
Eddie Johnson.

146. Plaintiff reasonably believes that the denials were a direct result of Defendant
LexisNexis reporting Plaintiff as deceased. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to

establish or to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the consumer

24
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 25 of 28 PagelD #: 25

information it published and maintained concerning Plaintiff.

147. Asa result of the deceased notation, Defendant made it practically impossible for
Plaintiff to continue to obtain credit and insurance.

148. Due to Defendant’s inaccurate reporting on at least one occasion, Plaintiff could
not even renew his auto insurance.

149. Plaintiffs inability to purchase auto insurance, and his therefore being bereft of
auto insurance, caused a significant amount of stress to Plaintiff, particular because he has two
young children. He needed to drive, and was reasonably, terribly concerned about the potential of
being involved in an accident while not maintaining insurance.

150. At the end of September 2024, Plaintiff determined that he would purchase auto
insurance from whatever insurance would accept his application at the steeply and artificially and
inaccurately increased rate.

151. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant was acting by and through its 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.

152. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of Defendant, as well as that of its
respective agents, servants, and/or employees, was intentional, willful, reckless, grossly negligent
and in utter disregard for federal law and the rights of Plaintiff herein.

153. Defendant is aware of the shortcomings of its procedures and intentionally chooses
not to comply with the FCRA to lower its costs. Accordingly, the Defendant’s violations of the
FCRA are willful.

154. Asaresult of Defendant’s conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff suffered damages

including but not limited to increased insurance premium costs; expenditure of time and labor

25
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 26 of 28 PagelD #: 26

trying to correct the information reported by Defendant; loss of credit; loss of ability to purchase
and benefit from his credit rating; detriment to his credit rating; loss of sleep, and emotional
distress including the mental and emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment of
credit and insurance denials, embarrassment of automotive records reporting about him, and
having at least one other consumer’s personal identifying information and automotive information,
mixed into Plaintiffs consumer file.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I

15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)
Failure to Follow Reasonable Procedures to Assure Maximum Possible Accuracy

155. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
preceding paragraphs as if fully stated herein.

156. The FCRA imposes a duty on consumer reporting agencies to devise and implement
procedures to ensure the “maximum possible accuracy” of consumer reports, as follows:
“Whenever 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) (emphasis added).

157. On numerous occasions, Defendant prepared patently false consumer reports
concerning Plaintiff.

158. Despite actual and implied knowledge that Plaintiff is not dead, Defendant readily
sold such false reports to one or more third parties, thereby misrepresenting Plaintiff, and
ultimately Plaintiff's creditworthiness.

159. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 168le(b) by failing to establish or to follow
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in the preparation of the consumer

reports it published and maintained concerning Plaintiff.

26
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 27 of 28 PagelD #: 27

160. Asaresult of Defendant’s conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff suffered damages
including but not limited to increased insurance premium costs; expenditure of time and labor
trying to correct the information reported by Defendant; loss of credit; loss of ability to purchase
and benefit from his good credit rating; detriment to his credit rating; loss of sleep, and emotional
distress including the mental and emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment of
credit and insurance denials, embarrassment of automotive records reporting about him, and
having at least one other consumer’s personal identifying information and automotive information,
mixed into Plaintiff's consumer file.

161. Defendant’s conduct, actions, and inactions was willful, rendering it 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. Alternatively, Defendant was negligent, entitling Plaintiff to
recover under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.

162. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ 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 the following relief:

i. Determining that Defendant negligently and/or willfully violated the FCRA;
il. Awarding Plaintiff actual, statutory, and punitive damages as provided by the
FCRA;

iil. Awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by the FCRA;
and,
iv. Granting further relief, in law or equity, as this Court may deem appropriate and

just.

27
Case: 4:24-cv-00123-SA-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/17/24 28 of 28 PageID #: 28

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: December 17, 2024 /s/ Brian H. Herrington
Brian Kelly Herrington
CHABRA GIBBS & HERRINGTON, PLLC
120 North Congress Street, Suite 200
Jackson, MS 39201
T: (601) 326-0820
F: (601) 948-8010
E: bherrington@nationalclasslawyers.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Eddie Jamaal Mixon

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.msnd.50169.1.0.pdf
Size: 343,152 bytes
SHA-256: 0a1069365ff714afd4529054c2a214b151042e00a8d2ae549de2247f388429e4
Our copy: gov.uscourts.msnd.50169.1.0.pdf
Original: www.courtlistener.com

Complaint (2024-12-17)

Summary

Full text

File and source

Related records