Full text
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
NOORAH BASHER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No.: 1:24-mi-99999
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
Noorah Basher (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Basher”) brings this action on an
individual basis, against LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. (“Defendant” or “LNRS”)
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 Plaintiff’s consumer file with 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
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 1 of 37
2
consumers to flow instantaneously to requesting parties. Such timely information is
intended to lead to faster and better decision-making by its recipients and, in theory,
all of society should ultimately benefit from the resulting convenience and
efficiency.
2.
However, unfortunately this information has also become readily
available for, and subject to, mishandling and misuse. Individual consumers can and
do sustain substantial damage, both economically and emotionally, whenever
inaccurate or fraudulent information is disseminated and/or obtained about them. In
fact, 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' insurance claims histories, 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.,
insurers, retailers, landlords, lenders, potential employers, and other similar
interested parties), commonly called "consumer reports," concerning individuals
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 2 of 37
3
who may be applying for insurance, retail credit, housing, employment, or a car or
mortgage loan.
5.
Since 1970, when Congress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. ("FCRA"), federal law has required CRAs to implement and
utilize reasonable procedures "to assure maximum possible accuracy" of the
personal, private, and financial information that they compile and sell about
individual consumers.
6.
“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.
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 3 of 37
4
(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
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
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 4 of 37
5
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
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 or her 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
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 5 of 37
6
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.
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).
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 6 of 37
7
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, non-party Experian, a consumer reporting agency, has
been the subject of numerous state attorney general actions relating to its mixed file
problem.
20.
For example, in 2015, the New York Attorney General filed charges
and settled claims with Defendant 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 Defendant’s notice and being subject to repeated
enforcement actions, mixed files continue to occur despite consumers’ unique
personal identifying information, such as Social Security numbers, date of birth, and
addresses.
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.
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 7 of 37
8
22.
Defendant has been sued thousands of times wherein an allegation was
made that Defendant violated the FCRA. Moreover, Defendant is sued, at a
minimum, hundreds of times each year wherein an allegation is made that Defendant
mixed a consumer’s credit file with that of another consumer.
23.
FCRA lawsuits have resulted in multi-million-dollar verdicts for
consumers who fall victim to a mixed credit file.
24.
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.
25.
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
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 8 of 37
9
the verdict, Defendant continues to mix consumers’ credit files with other
consumers’ credit files.
26.
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. Despite the verdict, Defendant
continues to mix consumers’ credit files with other consumers’ credit files.
27.
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.
28.
“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
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 9 of 37
10
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”).
29.
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.
30.
Notably, the Federal Trade Commission has specifically warned
consumer reporting agencies, including Defendant, to review their procedures when
a mixed file occurs.
31.
Despite federal and state law, Congressional mandate, federal and state
enforcement actions, and thousands of consumer lawsuits, mixed files remain a
significant problem for innocent consumers, including Plaintiff.
32.
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 file with
that of a different consumer.
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 10 of 37
11
33.
Accordingly, 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); and 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.
34.
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
35.
Noorah Basher (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Basher”) is a natural person residing
in Atlanta, Georgia, and is a “consumer” as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C. §
1681a(c).
36.
Defendant LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. ("Defendant" or "LNRS")
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.
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 11 of 37
12
37.
LNRS is a "consumer reporting agency" as defined in 15 U.S.C. §
1681a(f). LNRS 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.
38.
The information LNRS collects, maintains, and sells includes
confidential details about insurance claims history on more than 200 million
consumers. LNRS also collects consumers’ personal identifiers, such as Social
Security Numbers (“SSNs”), dates of birth, telephone numbers, and addresses.
39.
LNRS collects and maintains such information about consumers,
whether consumers like it or not. Consumers do not have a choice as to whether
LNRS collects and maintains information about them. Not only that, but consumers
cannot remove information that LNRS collects and maintains about them from the
CLUE database. Further, LNRS sells that information about consumers for its
unilateral profit, none of which is shared with the Plaintiff, who is the subject of the
very data that LNRS sold.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
40.
This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 1681p, which allows claims under the FCRA to be brought
in any appropriate court of competent jurisdiction.
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 12 of 37
13
41.
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
42.
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.
43.
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).
44.
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).
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 13 of 37
14
45.
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).
46.
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
47.
Defendant regularly receives information from various sources around
the country including banks, credit unions, automobile dealers, student loan
providers, public information vendors, and others.
48.
These sources are known as “furnishers” within the credit reporting
industry and under the FCRA.
49.
Defendant collects information from thousands of furnishers.
50.
The process by which Defendant receives, sorts, and stores information
is largely electronic.
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 14 of 37
15
51.
Defendant takes insurance information reported by furnishers and
creates consumer claims history files.
52.
Defendant takes credit information reported by furnishers and creates
consumer credit files.
53.
Defendant maintains insurance claims history on more than 200 million
consumers.
54.
Credit files are updated electronically by the furnishers to reflect new
information regarding the reported accounts.
DEFENDANT’S MIXED FILE PROBLEM
55.
Defendant knows that different consumers have similar names.
56.
Defendant knows that different consumers can have similar Social
Security numbers.
57.
Defendant knows that different consumers with similar names can also
have similar Social Security numbers.
58.
Defendant knows that public records often do contain identifying
information such as Social Security numbers or dates of birth.
59.
Defendant matches insurance claims and public records to a consumer
file by comparing the information about the consumer associated with the insurance
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 15 of 37
16
claim or public record to the information they maintain about the consumer in the
consumer’s files.
60.
Defendant accomplishes this matching of insurance claims information
to consumer files through the use of certain matching algorithms or database rules.
61.
From time to time, Defendant’s matching algorithms match
information belonging to one consumer to the file of another consumer; resulting in
a mixed or merged credit file.
62.
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.
63.
Despite Defendant's long-standing and specific knowledge of the mixed
file problem, Plaintiff’s consumer report was still generated by Defendant containing
information belonging to another consumer.
64.
A mixed or merged credit file is the result of Defendant’s inaccurately
mixing personal identifying information and driving history and/or an entire claims
history file belonging to one consumer into the claims history file of another
consumer.
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 16 of 37
17
65.
There are many different possible causes for the mixing of consumer
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 consumer
information, including public record information, to a particular consumers’ file.
66.
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 claims
history information to Defendant.
67.
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.
68.
Accordingly, the database rules determine which files are selected by
the algorithm and merged to create a complete consumer report.
69.
Therefore, a mixed consumer report is sometimes the result of the
mixing of two or more consumer files belonging to different consumers into one
consumer report.
//
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 17 of 37
18
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff is Added to Her Partner’s Automobile Insurance
70.
In July 2024, Plaintiff moved to Georgia to live with her partner. Prior
to that, Plaintiff had only ever lived in Ohio.
71.
Accordingly, Plaintiff planned to register her vehicle in Georgia, and
therefore, needed to update her automobile insurance.
72.
On or about August 11, 2024, Plaintiff and her partner decided to add
Plaintiff to the Progressive insurance policy (the “Policy”).
73.
To obtain a quote, Plaintiff provided Progressive with relevant
information, such as accident history and previous claims. Plaintiff disclosed prior
claims that belong to her, including one dated May 29, 2024 (“Plaintiff’s Disclosed
Claims”).
74.
Upon inquiring into how much it would cost to add Plaintiff to her
partner’s insurance, Progressive’s indicated that the Policy would increase by $22.95
per month.
75.
Plaintiff and her partner agreed that it made sense to add Plaintiff to the
Policy and agreed to pay for it using a joint account that they both contribute to.
76.
Accordingly, Plaintiff and her partner began Plaintiff’s application to
add her to the Policy.
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 18 of 37
19
77.
As part of the application process, Progressive uses consumer reports
to determine whether to approve consumer insurance applications and to determine
the rate a consumer receives. Plaintiff provided Progressive with her personal
identification information, including her Social Security number, and authorized it
to obtain copies of consumer report including her automobile insurance claims
history files. As Plaintiff had already disclosed her claims and automobile insurance
history in obtaining her quote, she was not worried about providing this
authorization.
78.
Upon information and belief, Progressive contracted with LexisNexis
to obtain Plaintiff’s credit information and requested a consumer report about
Plaintiff from LexisNexis.
79.
On or about August 11, 2024, Defendant sold a consumer report about
Plaintiff to Progressive in response to Plaintiff’s application.
Progressive Increases Plaintiff’s Insurance Rate
80.
On or about August 11, 2024, Progressive notified Plaintiff that the
Policy premium would increase by $161.70 the next month.
81.
Plaintiff was floored. She did not understand how Progressive’s initial
quote of $22.95 a month had increased by nearly 600% to $161.70, because the
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 19 of 37
20
accidents that Defendant was reporting did not involve Plaintiff at all or belong to
her.
82.
Progressive’s decision to charge Plaintiff more to be added to the Policy
was based on CLUE reports published by Defendant about Plaintiff.
83.
Upon reviewing Progressive’s notification, Plaintiff was confounded
by the appearance of several pieces of information that did not belong to Plaintiff at
all, including, but not limited to, four (4) at fault accidents dated:
(a)
May 30, 2019;
(b)
October 17, 2019;
(c)
April 12, 2022; and
(d)
February 22, 2023
(the “Accidents”).
84.
Progressive also specifically requested that Plaintiff provide further
details about the February 22, 2023, accident, and the April 12, 2022, accident.
85.
Defendant’s reporting was grossly inaccurate: Plaintiff had not been in
any accidents on those dates.
86.
The consumer file provided to Progressive by Defendant was patently
false on its face because Defendant should not have sold a consumer report about
Plaintiff containing the Accidents.
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 20 of 37
21
87.
By reporting the Accident’s in the consumer 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 consumer files and
consumer reports, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
Plaintiff’s Dispute to Defendant August 2024
88.
On or about August 11, 2024, worried that something was very wrong
with her consumer file, Plaintiff called Defendant and disputed the inaccuracies.
Specifically, Plaintiff disputed the Accidents, as well as three other claims, did not
belong to her.
89.
Plaintiff explained that Defendant mixed Plaintiff with her twin brother.
90.
Plaintiff requested that Defendant reinvestigate the disputed
information, correct the reporting, and send her a corrected copy of her consumer
report.
91.
That same day, Plaintiff followed up her dispute call with an email and
told Defendant she was happy to provide any additional information it needed to
assist them in correcting its inaccurate reporting.
92.
While awaiting the dispute results, Plaintiff knew she had to insure her
vehicle.
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 21 of 37
22
93.
Recognizing that she did not have much of a choice, and hopeful her
dispute would rectify the issue, Plaintiff and her partner agreed to add her to the
Policy.
94.
Because the amount was far more expensive than Plaintiff and her
partner anticipated, Plaintiff covered the cost incurred of being added to the
agreement in its entirety and sent the money to her Partner.
Defendant’s Unreasonable Dispute Reinvestigation
95.
In September 2024, Defendant sent a dispute response, dated
September 11, 2024, and provided Plaintiff with an updated consumer report.
96.
Upon reviewing the September 11, 2024, consumer report, Plaintiff was
distressed to see that Defendant was still reporting information belonging to her
brother, including the Accidents.
97.
Specifically, Defendant was still reporting the disputed Accidents,
which do not belong to Plaintiff, and other inaccurate information which does not
belong to Plaintiff:
(a)
Name Variations:
(1) Basher Noor
(2) Noor Anwar Basher
(3) Noor A Basher
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 22 of 37
23
(b)
Addresses:
(1) Addyston, OH 45001
(c)
Phone Numbers:
(1) (513) 312-1128
(2) (513) 229-3158
(d)
Automobile Insurance Claim Records:
(1) Record 1: Anwar Basher
Driver’s License No.: XXXXX153
Claim Number: 0547752048
Date of Claim: 5/30/2019
(2) Record 2: Anwar Basher
Driver’s License No.: XXXXX153
Claim Number: 0564906139
Date of Claim: 10/17/20219
(3) Record 3: Anwar Basher
Driver’s License No.: XXXXX153
Claim Number: 0665882742
Date of Claim: 4/12/2022
(4) Record 4: Anwar Basher
Driver’s License No.: XXXXX153
Claim Number: 0703818849
Date of Claim: 2/22/2023
(5) Record 5: Anwar Basher
Driver’s License No.: XXXXX153
Claim Number: 0756767000
Date of Claim: 5/29/2024
(e)
Department of Driver Services Records:
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 23 of 37
24
(1) Record 2: Noor Basher Anwar
(2) Record 4: Noor Basher A
Driver’s License Number: XXXXX252
(3) Record 5:
Driver’s License Number: XXXXX2713
(f)
Driver’s license violations:
(1) Record 1:
Court Case No.: 22D00584
(2) Record 2:
Court Case No.: 23TRD00324
(3) Record 3:
Court Case No.: 2022TRD00723
(4) Record 4:
Court Case No.: 22TRD27022
(5) Record 5:
BMW Case No.: LF24033828
(6) Record 6:
BMW Case No.: S123002071
(7) Record 7:
Departmental Violation
Incident Date: 6/11/2023
(8) Record 8:
Ticket No.: OHP140521090420191812
Case No.: TRD1904367
Case File Date: 2019090
(9) Record 9:
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 24 of 37
25
Ticket No.: M086965
Case No.: 18TRD02604
Case File Date: 20180502
(10) Record 10:
Ticket No.: OHP830471022220220013
Case No.: 22TRD00584
Case File Date: 20220222
(g)
Miscellaneous details:
(1) Record 2:
REMEDIAL TWO POINT CREDIT - COURSE COMPL
ETED: 20230603
(h)
Driver’s license records:
(1) Record 2: Noor Anwar Basher
(2) Record 3: Noor Anwar Basher
(3) Record 4: Noor Anwar Basher
(4) Record 6: Noor Anwar Basher
(5) Record 8: Noor Anwar Basher
(6) Record 10: Noor Anwar Basher
(7) Record 11: Noor Anwar Basher
98.
In response to Plaintiff’s August 2024 dispute, Defendant failed to
delete the information disputed by Plaintiff.
99.
Defendant failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of Plaintiff’s
August 2024 dispute, or any reinvestigation whatsoever, to determine whether the
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 25 of 37
26
disputed information was inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed
information, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).
100. Thereafter, Defendant failed to unmix Plaintiff’s consumer file from
that of Plaintiff’s brother and likely Defendant continued to report Plaintiff's
brother’s information to Plaintiff’s consumer file.
101. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to establish or to
follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the credit
information it published and maintained concerning Plaintiff.
102. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff
suffered damages including but not limited to, damage by the reporting of negative
driving records and insurance claims; loss of ability to purchase and benefit from her
good driving record and claims history; detriment to her driving record and claims
history; the expenditure of time and money disputing and trying to correct the
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
increased insurance policy rates and having another consumer’s personally
identifying information, driving records, and claims history, mixed into Plaintiff’s
claims history file.
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 26 of 37
27
Plaintiff’s Mixed File as of October 2024
103. Shocked, worried, and confused, to see even more additional accurate
information than she initially thought, Plaintiff requested a copy of her consumer
file from Defendant again in October 2024.
104. On or about October 28, 2024, Plaintiff obtained a copy of her
consumer file from Defendant.
105. Upon reviewing the contents of the October 28, 2024, consumer file,
Plaintiff was distressed to see that Defendant was still reporting information
belonging to her brother.
Plaintiff Sustained Damages as a Result of LexisNexis’ Inaccurate Reporting
106. 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.
107. Plaintiff has suffered from countless nights of poor sleep, no sleep, or
interrupted sleep as her mind frequently drifts to thoughts of the issues with
Defendant’s reporting about her, future issues caused by Defendant, and/or other
related matters.
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 27 of 37
28
108. Plaintiff has spent countless hours trying to correct her LexisNexis
consumer file as well as rectify the rate of her insurance Policy and suffered an
enormous amount of stress associated with the inaccurate reporting.
109. Plaintiff was anxious and frustrated because she did not know how to
correct her LexisNexis report.
110. Upon information and belief, because Defendant continues to mix
Plaintiff’s consumer file with that of her twin brother, Defendant continues to sell
Plaintiff’s consumer file in response to applications and inquiries pertaining to her
brother.
111. As a result of the “mixed file,” Defendant cost Plaintiff to incur costs
she otherwise would not have incurred.
112. 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.
113. 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.
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 28 of 37
29
114. As a standard practice, Defendant does not conduct independent
investigations in response to consumer disputes. Instead, it merely parrots the
response of the furnisher, despite numerous court decisions admonishing this
practice. See Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220, 225 (3d Cir. 1997) (The
‘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).
115. 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.
116. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff
suffered damages including but not limited to, damage by the reporting of negative
driving records and insurance claims; loss of ability to purchase and benefit from her
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 29 of 37
30
good driving record and claims history; detriment to her driving record and claims
history; the expenditure of time and money disputing and trying to correct the
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
increased insurance policy rates and having another consumer’s personally
identifying information, driving records, and claims history, mixed into Plaintiff’s
claims history 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 LNRS)
117. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set
forth in preceding paragraphs as if fully stated herein.
118. 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.
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 30 of 37
31
15 U.S.C. §1681e(b) (emphasis added).
119. On at least one occasion, Defendant prepared patently false consumer
reports concerning Plaintiff.
120. Defendant mixed another consumer’s personal and credit account
information into Plaintiff’s consumer file, thereby misrepresenting Plaintiff, and
ultimately, Plaintiff’s insurability.
121. Defendant LNRS 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 claims history files it published and
maintained concerning Plaintiff.
122. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff
suffered damages including but not limited to, damage by the reporting of negative
driving records and insurance claims; loss of ability to purchase and benefit from her
good driving record and claims history; detriment to her driving record and claims
history; the expenditure of time and money disputing and trying to correct the
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
increased insurance policy rates and having another consumer’s personally
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 31 of 37
32
identifying information, driving records, and claims history, mixed into Plaintiff’s
claims history file.
123. Defendant’s conduct, actions, and inactions was willful, rendering them
liable for actual or statutory damages, and punitive damages in an amount to be
determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. Alternatively, Defendant
was negligent, entitling Plaintiff to recover under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.
124. 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.
COUNT II
15 U.S.C. § 1681i
Failure to Perform a Reasonable Reinvestigation
(Second Claim for Relief Against Defendant LNRS)
125. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set
forth in preceding paragraphs as if fully stated herein.
126. The FCRA mandates that Defendant conduct a reasonable
reinvestigation of the accuracy of information “[i]f the completeness or accuracy of
any item of information contained in a consumer’s file” is disputed by the consumer.
See 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1). The FCRA imposes a 30-day time limit for the
completion of such an investigation. Id.
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 32 of 37
33
127. The FCRA provides that if Defendant conducts its reinvestigation of
disputed information and confirms that the information is, in fact, inaccurate or it is
unable to otherwise verify the accuracy of the disputed information, it is required to
delete the item of information from the consumer’s file. See 15 U.S.C. §
1681i(a)(5)(A).
128. Plaintiff initiated a dispute with Defendant and disputed inaccurate
information reporting in her claims history file and requested that Defendant correct
and/or delete the inaccurate, misleading, and highly damaging information
belonging to a different consumer.
129. Defendant failed to correct Plaintiff’s report in response to Plaintiff’s
dispute and conducted no investigation of Plaintiff’s dispute, or such investigation,
if any, was so unreasonable as to allow patently false and highly damaging
information to remain in Plaintiff’s claims history file.
130. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681i by failing to conduct a reasonable
reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information was inaccurate and
record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the disputed
information, before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which it
received notice of Plaintiff’s dispute; and by failing to maintain reasonable
procedures with which to filter and verify information in Plaintiff’s consumer files.
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 33 of 37
34
131. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff
suffered damages including but not limited to, damage by the reporting of negative
driving records and insurance claims; loss of ability to purchase and benefit from her
good driving record and claims history; detriment to her driving record and claims
history; the expenditure of time and money disputing and trying to correct the
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
increased insurance policy rates and having another consumer’s personally
identifying information, driving records, and claims history, mixed into Plaintiff’s
claims history file.
132. Upon information and belief, Defendant knew or should have known
about its obligations under the FCRA. These obligations are well-established in the
plain language of the FCRA, promulgations made by the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and in well-established
case law.
133. Therefore, Defendant acted consciously in failing to adhere to its
obligations under the FCRA.
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 34 of 37
35
134. Defendant’s conduct, actions, and inactions was willful, rendering them
liable for actual or statutory damages, and punitive damages in an amount to be
determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. Alternatively, Defendant
was negligent, entitling Plaintiff to recover under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.
135. 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;
ii.
Awarding Plaintiff actual, statutory, and punitive damages as provided
by the FCRA;
iii.
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.
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 35 of 37
36
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so
triable.
Respectfully submitted this 27th day of December 2024.
By: /s/ Jenna Dakroub
Jenna Dakroub, GA #385021
CONSUMER JUSTICE LAW FIRM PLC
260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200
Atlanta, GA 30303
T: (602) 807-1525
F: (718) 715-1750
E: jdakroub@consumerjustice.com
CONSUMER JUSTICE LAW FIRM PLC
8095 N. 85th Way
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Noorah Basher
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 36 of 37
37
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 27, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send notice of such
filing to all attorneys of record in this matter. Since none of the attorneys of record
are non-ECF participants, hard copies of the foregoing have not been provided via
personal delivery or by postal mail.
CONSUMER JUSTICE LAW FIRM PLC
By: /s/ Jenna Dakroub
Case 1:24-cv-05967-SDG-JCF Document 1 Filed 12/27/24 Page 37 of 37