Complaint (2024-12-26)

Date: 2024-12-26

Summary

A Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial filed December 26, 2024 as Document 1 in Jerry Tallent v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00134-TES, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Athens Division. The plaintiff alleges that LexisNexis mixed his credit file with that of another consumer and published a consumer report about him in response to an insurance application by an unrelated consumer. The complaint asserts claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act for failing to follow reasonable procedures under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), failing to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i, and selling his report without a permissible purpose under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a). It seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and demands a jury trial. The 40-page complaint is signed by Consumer Justice Law Firm PLC.

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 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 1 of 40

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION

JERRY TALLENT, Case No.: 3:24-cv-00134

Plaintiff,

LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS
INC.,
Defendant.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Jerry Tallent (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Tallent”) 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., arising out

of Defendant’s mixing of Plaintiff’s credit file with that of another consumer.

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

1
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 2 of 40

intended to lead to faster and better decision-making by its recipients and, in theory,

all of society should ultimately benefit from the resulting convenience and

efficiency.

2. However, unfortunately this information has also become readily

available for, and subject to, mishandling and misuse. Individual consumers can and

do sustain substantial damage, both economically and emotionally, whenever

inaccurate or fraudulent information is disseminated and/or obtained about them. In

fact, the Defendant acknowledges this potential for misuse and resulting damage

every time it sells its respective credit monitoring services to a consumer.

3. The ongoing technological advances in the area of data processing have

resulted in a boon for the companies that accumulate and sell data concerning

individuals' credit histories and other personal information. Such companies are

commonly known as consumer reporting agencies ("CRAs").

4. These CRAs sell information to readily paying subscribers (i.e.,

retailers, landlords, lenders, potential employers, and other similar interested

parties), commonly called "consumer reports," concerning individuals who may be

applying for retail credit, housing, employment, or a car or mortgage loan.

5. Since 1970, when Congress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15

U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. ("FCRA"), federal law has required CRAs to implement and

utilize reasonable procedures "to assure maximum possible accuracy" of the

2
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 3 of 40

personal, private, and financial information that they compile and sell about

individual consumers.

6. “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).

7. 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).

8. 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

3
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 4 of 40

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).

9. 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. 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).

10. 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

4
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 5 of 40

possible accuracy” of the personal and financial information that they compile and

sell about individual consumers.

11. 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 credit and obtaining new credit.

12. 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).

13. 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 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.

5
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 6 of 40

14. A recurring and known issue within the credit reporting industry is the

creation of “mixed files.”

15. A “mixed file” occurs when personal and credit information belonging

to Consumer B appears in one or more of Consumer A’s credit files.

16. “Mixed files” create a false description and representation of a

consumer’s credit history.

17. 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.T.C. v.

TRW, Inc., 784 F. Supp. 361, 362 (N.D. Tex. 1991).

18. Mixed files are not a new phenomenon. Defendant has been on notice

of the existence of mixed files, and the fact that its procedures for creating credit

files, including its 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 (5th Cir. 1982).

19. More recently and by way of example, Experian, a consumer reporting

agency like the Defendant, has been the subject of numerous state attorney general

actions relating to its mixed file problem.

6
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 7 of 40

20. For example, in 2015, the New York Attorney General filed charges

and settled claims with Experian over mixed files.1 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.

21. Notwithstanding Experian’s notice, which should have alerted

Defendant to their similar practices and being subject to repeated enforcement

actions, mixed files continue to occur despite consumers’ unique personal

identifying information, such as Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and

addresses.

22. 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.

23. Defendant has been sued hundreds of times in recent years wherein an

allegation was made that Defendant violated the FCRA. Moreover, Defendant is

1
https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2015-ag-schneiderman-announces-
groundbreaking-consumer-protection-settlement-three Last visited May 17, 2022;
see also https://ag-
ny.gov/pdfs/CRA%20Agreement%20Fully%20Executed%203.8.15.pdf Last
visited May 17, 2022.
7
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 8 of 40

sued, at a minimum, dozens of times per year wherein an allegation is made that

Defendant mixed a consumer’s credit file with that of another consumer.

24. FCRA lawsuits have resulted in multi-million-dollar verdicts for

consumers who fall victim to a mixed credit file.

25. For example, 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. Despite the verdict, Defendant continues to mix consumers’ credit

files with other consumers’ credit files.

26. 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. Despite

the verdict, Defendant continues to mix consumers’ credit files with other

consumers’ credit files.

27. 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

8
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 9 of 40

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. Despite the verdict, Defendant

continues to mix consumers’ credit files with other consumers’ credit files.

28. More recently, 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. 20020).

Despite the verdict, Defendant continues to mix consumers’ credit files with other

consumers’ credit files.

29. “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.

9
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 10 of 40

of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 53 (2007) (punitive damages can be awarded based on

“reckless disregard for a statutory duty”).

30. 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.

31. Notably, the Federal Trade Commission has specifically warned

consumer reporting agencies, including Defendant, to review their procedures when

a mixed file occurs.

32. 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.

33. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the Defendant’s blatantly inaccurate

credit reporting, wherein Defendant published in a consumer report about Plaintiff

the information of another consumer because Defendant mixed Plaintiff’s credit file

with that of an unrelated consumer.

34. Further, Plaintiff’s claims also arise out of Defendant’s blatantly

inaccurate consumer reporting, wherein Defendant permitted the impermissible

access to Plaintiff’s credit file when it published a consumer report about Plaintiff

in response to an insurance application submitted by and pertaining to an unrelated

10
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 11 of 40

consumer because Defendant mixed Plaintiff’s credit file with that of an unrelated

consumer.

35. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings claims against Defendant for failing to

follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiffs

consumer reports, in violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b); for failing to

conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether information Plaintiff

disputed was inaccurate and in fact, the product of a mixed file, and for failing to

delete the disputed information from Plaintiff’s credit file, in violation of the FCRA,

15 U.S.C. § 1681i; and for selling Plaintiff’s consumer report to third parties, whom

did not have a permissible purpose to Plaintiff’s consumer report, in relation to the

insurance applications of an unrelated consumer, in violation of the FCRA, 15

U.S.C. § 1681b(a).

36. 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

37. Jerry Tallent (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Tallent”) is a natural person residing

in Monroe, Georgia, and is a “consumer” as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C. §

1681a(c).

11
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 12 of 40

38. Defendant LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., ("Defendant" or

"LexisNexis") is a corporation with a principal place of business located at 1000

Alderman Drive Alpharetta, Georgia 30005, and is authorized to do business in the

State of Georgia, including within this District.

39. 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.

40. The information LexisNexis collects, maintains, and sells includes

confidential details about the income, finances, credit histories, address histories,

application histories, credit review histories, and employment histories of 245

million Americans. LexisNexis also collects consumers’ personal identifiers, such

as Social Security Numbers (“SSNs”), dates of birth, telephone numbers, and

addresses.

41. LexisNexis collects and maintains such information about consumers,

whether consumers like it or not. Consumers do not have a choice as to whether

LexisNexis collects and maintains information about them. Not only that, but

consumers cannot remove information that LexisNexis collects and maintains about

them from the LexisNexis database. Further, LexisNexis sells that information about

12
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 13 of 40

consumers for its unilateral profit, none of which is shared with the Plaintiff, who is

the subject of the very data that LexisNexis sold.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

42. 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.

43. 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 Plaintiff's claims

occurred in this District.

SUMMARY OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

44. 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.

45. 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).

13
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 14 of 40

46. 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).

47. 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. § 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. § 1681i).

48. 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.

DEFENDANT’S PROCESSING OF CREDIT INFORMATION

49. Defendant regularly receives information from various sources around

the country including banks, credit unions, automobile dealers, student loan

providers, public information vendors, and others.

50. These sources are known as “furnishers” within the credit reporting

industry and under the FCRA.

14
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 15 of 40

51. Defendant collects information from thousands of furnishers.

52. The process by which Defendant receives, sorts, and stores information

is largely electronic.

53. Furnishers report credit information to Defendant through the use of

coded tapes that are transmitted to Defendant on a monthly basis through software

known as Metro 2.

54. Defendant takes credit information reported by furnishers and creates

consumer credit files.

55. Defendant maintains credit files on more than 200 million consumers.

56. Credit files are updated electronically by the furnishers to reflect new

information regarding the reported accounts (sometimes referred to within the

industry as “tradelines”).

DEFENDANT’S MIXED FILE PROBLEM

57. Defendant knows that different consumers have similar names.

58. Defendant knows that different consumers can have similar Social

Security numbers.

59. Defendant knows that different consumers with similar names can also

have similar Social Security numbers.

60. Defendant knows that public records often do contain identifying

information such as Social Security numbers or dates of birth.

15
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 16 of 40

61. 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.

62. Defendant accomplishes this matching of credit information to

consumer credit files through the use of certain matching algorithms or database

rules.

63. From time to time, Defendant’s matching algorithms match

information belonging to one consumer to the credit file of another consumer;

resulting in what’s commonly known as in the credit reporting industry as a mixed

or merged credit file.

64. 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 major CRAs, specifically including Defendant, regarding its significant

failures and deficiencies with respect to mixed files.

65. 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.

16
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 17 of 40

66. A mixed or merged credit file is the result of Defendant’s 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.

67. 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 and/or database rules

used by Defendant to match personal identifying information and credit information,

including public record information, to a particular consumers’ credit file.

68. The success or failure of these algorithms or rules is both a function of

the rules themselves and of the information provided by the furnishers of the

tradeline information to Defendant.

69. 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.

70. Accordingly, the database rules determine which credit files are

selected by the algorithm and merged to create a complete consumer report.

71. 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.

17
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 18 of 40

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Plaintiff Attempts to Renew Insurance Policy with GA Farm Bureau

72. Plaintiff has retained auto insurance from GA Farm Bureau, year after

year, for over 30 years.

73. In or around June 2024, Plaintiff received an insurance renewal notice

from GA Farm Bureau that indicated that his insurance premium would be

substantially and dramatically increased.

74. Surprised and perturbed, in or around June 2024, Plaintiff contacted his

insurance agent to inquire about the increase in his insurance premium.

75. A GA Farm Bureau representative informed Plaintiff that the increase

was due to his recent “car wreck” reflected in an insurance claim wherein Plaintiff

damaged property while driving under the influence that resulted in the vehicle being

“totaled”.

76. Plaintiff, a 61-year-old man, was shocked and confused upon hearing

this information, as he had never been in a car wreck, nor has he been involved in a

car crash or accident of any kind in at least a two decades.

77. Plaintiff, befuddled as to why there was such a claim in his file, inquired

from GA Farm Bureau as to where it had obtained the obviously erroneous

information.

18
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 19 of 40

78. The representative informed Plaintiff that it had obtained the

information regarding the claim from Defendant.

79. Upon information and belief, Defendant sold a consumer report about

Plaintiff to GA Farm Bureau that contained an insurance claim, as follows:

19
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 20 of 40

B. Plaintiff Applies for a New Insurance Polic with Travelers Insurance

80. Disheartened by the sudden, unreasonable, and unaffordable increase

in his insurance premium, Plaintiff was determined to shop elsewhere, with other

insurance providers, and attempt to secure a more reasonable insurance rate.

81. On or about June 6, 2024, Plaintiff contacted Travelers Insurance to

obtain a quote for an insurance policy.

82. Much to Plaintiff’s surprise and dismay, Travelers Insurance quoted

Plaintiff a far higher premium than what GA Farm Bureau had offered.

83. Defeated and in desperate need for auto insurance coverage, Plaintiff

relented and renewed his policy with GA Farm Bureau and paid the substantially-

increased premium.

C. Plaintiff’s Mixed File Problem July 2024

84. On or about July 8, 2024, Plaintiff requested a copy of his credit file

from Defendant.

85. Soon after, Plaintiff was able to obtain a copy of his credit file from

Defendant.

86. To his utter surprise and dismay, Plaintiff discovered multiple pieces of

personal identifying information that did not belong to him

87. Further, and more damaging to Plaintiff, Plaintiff discovered at least

four (4) insurance claims that did not belong to him.

20
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 21 of 40

88. By reporting the aforementioned insurance records and other personal

information in the credit file presumably about Plaintiff, despite the fact that the

accounts and information do not belong to Plaintiff, Defendant failed to follow

reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information

contained within Plaintiff’s credit files and consumer reports, in violation of 15

U.S.C. § 1681e(b).

D. Plaintiff’s July 2024 Dispute to Defendant

89. Sometime after July 8, 2024, worried that something was very wrong

with his credit file, Plaintiff disputed the inaccuracies. Specifically, Plaintiff

disputed many items of information that were in his credit file but that did not belong

to him. Plaintiff disputed the inaccuracies with Defendant online.

90. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff specifically disputed the four (4)

Automobile Insurance Claim records that were being inaccurately reported by

Defendant about Plaintiff.

91. In his dispute, Plaintiff requested that Defendant reinvestigate the

disputed information, correct the reporting, and send him a corrected copy of his

credit report.

E. Defendant’s Unreasonable Dispute Reinvestigation

92. On or about August 9, 2024, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s dispute.

21
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 22 of 40

93. Defendant informed Plaintiff that it had reinvestigated Plaintiff’s

disputes and had verified three out of the four Automobile Insurance Claim records

as accurate.

94. Further, on or about August 14, 2024, Plaintiff received another dispute

response from Defendant informing Plaintiff that it had been unable to verify the last

of four Automobile Insurance Claim records.

95. Defendant failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of Plaintiff’s

July 2024 dispute, or any bona-fide reinvestigation whatsoever, to determine

whether the disputed information was inaccurate and record the current status of the

disputed information, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).

96. Thereafter, and upon information and belief, Defendant failed to unmix

Plaintiff’s credit file from that of the other consumer and Defendant continued to

report the other consumer’s information to Plaintiff’s credit file.

97. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff

suffered damages including but not limited to, the loss of his right to keep his private

financial information confidential; the loss of his right to information about who was

viewing his private financial information and how his private financial information

was improperly implicated in the credit applications of another; damage by loss of

credit; detriment to his credit rating; the expenditure of labor and effort disputing

and trying to correct the inaccurate consumer reporting; and emotional distress

22
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 23 of 40

including the mental and emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment

of credit denials and having another consumer’s personally identifying information

and credit information, including inquiries, mixed into Plaintiff’s credit file.

F. Plaintiff’s August 2024 Dispute to Defendant

98. On or about August 26, 2024, worried that the inaccuracies will

continue to negatively affect his insurance premiums and overall creditworthiness,

Plaintiff decided to dispute the inaccuracies again with Defendant. Plaintiff disputed

with Defendant via phone.

99. Plaintiff was able to speak with a representative from Defendant on the

phone and, over about 85 minutes, they painstakingly reviewed each and every item

of unrecognized personal identifying information as well as other pieces of

inaccurate information that were reflected in his credit file, including, most notably,

the unrecognized auto insurance claims.

100. Plaintiff requested that Defendant reinvestigate the disputed

information, correct the reporting, and send him a corrected copy of his consumer

report.

G. Defendant’s Unreasonable Dispute Reinvestigation

101. On or about September 20, 2024, Plaintiff received a dispute response

from Defendant.

23
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 24 of 40

102. Much like its first response, Defendant informed Plaintiff that it had

reinvestigated Plaintiff’s disputes and had verified two of three Automobile

Insurance Claim records as accurate.

103. Defendant omitted any response regarding the other inaccurate pieces

information that was published in Plaintiff’s credit file, such as the many name and

address variations, a Social Security number variation, phone numbers, email

addresses, insurance policy records, and other information that did not belong to

Plaintiff and that had been meticulously disputed with Defendant on the phone.

104. Defendant failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of Plaintiff’s

September 2024 dispute, or any bona-fide reinvestigation whatsoever, to determine

whether the disputed information was inaccurate and record the current status of the

disputed information, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).

105. Thereafter, and upon information and belief, Defendant failed to unmix

Plaintiff’s credit file from that of the other consumer and Defendant continued to

report the other consumer’s information to Plaintiff’s credit file.

106. Indeed, a consumer report provided by Defendant to Plaintiff on

September 20, 2024, that was purportedly updated in response to Plaintiff’s

September 2024 dispute, still reflected many name and address variations, a Social

Security number variation, phone numbers, email addresses, insurance policy

24
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 25 of 40

records, and other information that did not belong to Plaintiff and that had been

meticulously disputed with Defendant on the phone.

107. Specifically, Defendant was reporting the following Automobile

Insurance Claim records which did not belong to Plaintiff:

(a) Record 1- Terry Tallent

(b) Record 2 – Terry Tallent

108. Further, Defendant was reporting the following Automobile Insurance

Claim records which did not belong to Plaintiff:

(a) Record 5 – Terry Tallent
Owners

(b) Record 6 - Terry Talent
USAA General Ind. Co.

(d) Record 9 – Terry Tallent
Progressive Groups

109. Further, Defendant was reporting the following addresses which did not

belong to Plaintiff:

(a) 111 Aberfeldy St, Savannah, GA 31407¬1607

(b) 3953 Gadson Dr, Macon, GA 31204¬6307

25
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 26 of 40

(d) 6060 Kay Dr, Norcross, GA 30093¬1936

(e) 328 Buckhalter Rd A Unit, Savannah, GA 31405¬6112

(f) 4966 Steve Reynolds Blvd, Norcross, GA 30093¬4613

(g) 160 Kibbee Rd, McDonough, GA 30252¬3916

(h) 2010 Northlake Pkwy 1 Apt, Tucker, GA 30084¬7014

(i) 338 Brook Hollow Rd, Boone, NC 28607¬8528

(j) 302 W King St, Boone, NC 28607¬3519

(k) 1656 Meat Camp Rd, Boone, NC 28607¬7260

(l) 711 E Broad St, Savannah, GA 31401¬6023

(m) 111 Aberfeldy St, Port Wentworth, GA 31407¬1607

(n) 111 Aberfeldy St, Prt Wentworth, GA 31407¬1607

(o) 819 5th St S, Monroe, GA 30655

(p) 1503 Washington Ave, Savannah, GA 31404¬4049

(q) 1419 Us Highway 321 N, Sugar Grove, NC 28679¬9469

(r) 711 E Broad A, Savannah, GA 31401¬6112

110. Further, Defendant was reporting the following name variations that do

not belong to Plaintiff:

(a) Jerry Atallent

(b) Mr. Jerrly Atallent

26
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 27 of 40

(d) Terry Attalent

(e) Terry Tallent

(f) Mr. Terry Tallent

(g) Mr. Jerry Talent

(h) Jerry Talent

111. Further, Defendant was reporting the following phone number which

did not belong to Plaintiff:

(a) (912) 346-8761

112. Further, Defendant was also reporting the following dates of birth

variations that do not belong to Plaintiff:

(a) 0

(b) xx/01/1962

113. Further, Defendant was also reporting the following Social Security

number variation that does not belong to Plaintiff:

(a) xxx-xx-3099

114. Further, Defendant was also reporting the following email addresses

that did not belong to Plaintiff:

(a) terrytallent@aol.com

(b) jlouman@hotmail.com

27
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 28 of 40

115. By reporting the aforementioned insurance records and other personal

information in the credit file presumably about Plaintiff, despite the fact that the

accounts and information do not belong to Plaintiff, Defendant failed to follow

reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information

contained within Plaintiff’s credit files and consumer reports, in violation of 15

U.S.C. § 1681e(b).

116. Further, Defendant reported that Plaintiff applied for insurance on or

about August 20, 2024.

117. Plaintiff did not apply for any insurance policy with any insurance

provider on that date. Defendant did not have a permissible purpose for furnishing

information about Plaintiff to any insurance provider on the above-referenced date.

118. Upon information and belief, the inquiry was initiated by insurance

applications submitted by an unrelated consumer.

119. As Plaintiff had not authorized any insurance provider to request

Plaintiff’s consumer report from Defendant on the above-referenced date in 2024,

nor did Plaintiff enter into any business transaction or relationship that otherwise

may have provided a basis for an insurance provider to secure a copy of Plaintiff’s

consumer report from Defendant, Defendant disclosed information about Plaintiff to

the above-referenced entities without a permissible purpose and in violation of 15

U.S.C. § 1681b(a).

28
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 29 of 40

120. Upon information and belief, because Defendant continues to mix

Plaintiff’s credit file with that of the unrelated consumer, Defendant continues to sell

Plaintiff’s credit file in response to applications and inquiries pertaining to the

unrelated consumer.

121. Upon information and belief, between June 2024 and September 2024,

Plaintiff submitted a total of four (4) separate disputes to Defendant, each of which

disputed the inaccurate insurance claims.

122. Upon information and belief, Defendant did not conduct a reasonable

reinvestigation in response to any of those four (4) disputes, and continues, still

today, reporting inaccurate insurance claim records, and other personal information

and personal identifying information that does not belong to Plaintiff.

H. Plaintiff Sustained Damages as a Result of LexisNexis’ Inaccurate
Reporting
123. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff sustained severe emotional

distress. Specifically, Plaintiff has spent an inordinate amount of time dealing with

the stress and anxiety caused by the false reporting from Defendant.

124. Plaintiff has suffered from nights of poor sleep, no sleep, or interrupted

sleep as his mind frequently drifts to thoughts of the issues with his LexisNexis

report, future issues caused by LexisNexis, and/or other related matters.

125. Plaintiff has spent hours trying to correct his LexisNexis consumer file

and suffered an enormous amount of stress associated with the inaccurate reporting.

29
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 30 of 40

126. Plaintiff was anxious and frustrated because he did not know how to

correct his LexisNexis report.

127. Upon information and belief, because Defendant continues to mix

Plaintiff’s consumer file with that of an unrelated consumer, Defendant continues to

sell Plaintiff’s consumer file in response to applications and inquiries pertaining to

the unrelated consumer.

128. As a result of the “mixed file,” Defendant made it practically

impossible for Plaintiff to obtain affordable insurance.

129. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant 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.

130. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant’s conduct, 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.

131. As a standard practice, Defendant does not conduct independent

investigations in response to consumer disputes. Instead, it merely parrots the

response of the furnishers, despite numerous court decisions admonishing this

practice. See Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220, 225 (3d Cir. 1997) (The

30
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 31 of 40

‘grave responsibilit[y]’ imposed by § 1681(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).

132. Defendant is aware of the shortcomings of its procedures and

intentionally chooses not to comply with the FCRA to lower its costs. Accordingly,

Defendant’s violations of the FCRA are willful.

133. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff

suffered damages including but not limited to, the loss of his right to keep his private

financial information confidential; the loss of his right to information about who was

viewing his private financial information and how his private financial information

was improperly implicated in the credit and/or insurance applications of another;

loss of ability to purchase and benefit from his safe driving history and decreased

insurance risk; increased insurance rates and premiums; detriment to his credit

rating; the expenditure of time and money disputing and trying to correct the

31
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 32 of 40

inaccurate consumer reporting; the expenditure of labor and effort disputing and

trying to correct the inaccurate consumer reporting; and emotional distress including

the mental and emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment of

exorbitant and unaffordable insurance rates, and having another consumer’s personal

identifying information and background and insurance information, including

inquiries, mixed into Plaintiff’s credit file.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I
15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)
Failure to Follow Reasonable Procedures to Assure Maximum Possible
Accuracy
(First Claim for Relief Against Defendant)

134. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set

forth in preceding paragraphs as if fully stated herein.

135. 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).

136. On at least one occasion, Defendant prepared patently false consumer

reports concerning Plaintiff.

32
Case 3:24-cv-00134-TES Document 1 Filed 12/26/24 Page 33 of 40

137. Defendant mixed another consumer’s personal and insurance

information into Plaintiff’s credit file, thereby misrepresenting Plaintiff, and

ultimately, Plaintiff’s creditworthiness, particularly as applied to insurance and his

driving history and level of risk.

138. Defendant 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 consumer reports and credit files it published and maintained

concerning Plaintiff.

139. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff