Complaint

Date: 2025-06-13

Summary

A complaint filed June 13, 2025 as Document 1 in Timothy Joseph McClusky v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. and SoFi Bank, N.A., Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division. The complaint brings claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, alleging that LexisNexis reported that SoFi accessed the plaintiff's consumer report to collect on a SoFi account, and failed to reasonably investigate two disputes, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) and 15 U.S.C. § 1681i. It alleges that SoFi obtained the plaintiff's consumer report without a permissible purpose, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f). The plaintiff seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and demands a jury trial. It is signed by Leonard A. Bennett of Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION

TIMOTHY JOSEPH MCCLUSKY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.

LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC.,
SERVE: Corporation Service Company
2626 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 550
Raleigh, NC 27608 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
and

SOFI BANK, N.A.,
SERVE: CT Corporation System
160 Mine Lake Court, Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27615

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Timothy J. McClusky, by and through his undersigned Counsel, brings this

action against Defendants LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.; and SoFi Bank, N.A.,

and for his causes of action states as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. The computerization of our society has resulted in a revolutionary

increase in the accumulation and processing of data concerning individual American

Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 1 of 25
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. 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, national

credit bureaus like LexisNexis acknowledge this potential for misuse and resulting

damage every time they sell consumer reports like the ones at issue in this case.

3. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) strictly curtails the

assembling and trading of such information, requiring consumer reporting agencies

(“CRAs”) like LexisNexis to adhere to reasonable procedures designed to assure the

maximum possible accuracy of the information they report. 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).

4. And when a consumer disputes inaccurate information in a LexisNexis

report, LexisNexis must reasonably investigate those disputes and correct

information that is inaccurate or delete information that cannot be verified. 15 U.S.C.

§ 1681i.

2
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 2 of 25
5. Accessing consumer reports is presumptively illegal, and the FCRA

imposes meaningful obligations and requirements upon those who wish to access

such reports.

6. Chief among these protections is the requirement that a person seeking

a consumer report have a permissible purpose under the Act for seeking the reports,

and it must certify that purpose to the CRA. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b(a), 1681e(a).

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

resulted in a boon for the companies like LexisNexis, that accumulate and sell data

concerning individuals’ credit histories and other personal information.

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

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

parties), concerning individuals who may be applying for retail credit, housing,

employment, or a car or mortgage loan.

9. Since 1970, when Congress enacted the 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.

10. One of the primary purposes in requiring CRAs to assure “maximum

possible accuracy” of consumer information is to ensure the stability of our banking

system:

3
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 3 of 25
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.
15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(1).

11. 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).

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

4
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 4 of 25
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. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of LexisNexis’s inaccurate credit reporting,

wherein it reported to Plaintiff’s potential creditors that SoFi accessed Plaintiff’s

LexisNexis consumer report so that SoFi could collect from Plaintiff on a SoFi

account when that was not true.

15. Plaintiff disputed the inaccuracy with LexisNexis twice, but

LexisNexis failed to reasonably investigate those disputes and correct the

inaccuracy.

16. SoFi also obtained a consumer report about Plaintiff on May 1, 2024,

but Plaintiff never applied for credit with SoFi. SoFi therefore accessed Plaintiff’s

credit without an FCRA permissible purpose for doing that. SoFi accessed Plaintiff’s

credit repeatedly throughout 2023 and 2024, resulting in approximately 4 improper

credit pulls.

17. Plaintiff did not apply for credit with SoFi, nor have any accounts with

SoFi, during this period.

5
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 5 of 25
18. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings claims against LexisNexis 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 failing to conduct

a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether information Plaintiff disputed was

inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the

disputed information from Plaintiff’s credit file, in violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C.

§ 1681i.

19. Plaintiff also brings a claim against Defendant SoFi for accessing his

consumer report without having a permissible purpose for doing so, in violation of

the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f).

20. As part of this action, Plaintiff seeks actual, statutory, and punitive

damages, costs and attorneys’ fees from Defendants for their willful and/or negligent

violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., as described

herein.

PARTIES

21. Timothy J. McClusky is a natural person residing in Charlotte, Norh

Carolina, and is a “consumer” as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).

22. Defendant LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. is a limited liability

company with a principal place of business located at 1550 Peachtree Street, N.W.,

Atlanta, Georgia 30309, and is authorized to do business in the State of North

6
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 6 of 25
Carolina, including within this District. LexisNexis can be served at its registered

agent for service Corporation Service Company at 2626 Glenwood Avenue, Suite

550, Raleigh, NC 27608.

23. 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.

24. Defendant SoFi Bank, N.A. is an FDIC insured national bank

headquartered at 2750 E Cottonwood Parkway, Cottonwood Heights, Utah 84121,

and is authorized to do business in the State of North Carolina, including within this

District. SoFi can be served at its registered agent for service, CT Corporation

System 160 Mine Lake Ct., Ste. 200, Raleigh, NC 27615-6417.

25. SoFi is a credit grantor and “furnisher” of consumer information, as the

term is used in 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

26. 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.

7
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 7 of 25
27. 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 and Division.

FACTS

Summary of the Fair Credit Reporting Act

28. 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.

29. 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).

30. 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).

8
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 8 of 25
31. 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).

32. 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.

33. The FCRA also protects the provision of information it governs to only

specific circumstances. Without an FCRA permissible purpose, one cannot access

consumer reports for any reason. 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f).

Plaintiff’s Experience
34. The United States Congress has found that the banking system is

dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate consumer reports

directly impair the efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting

methods undermine the public confidence, which is essential to the continual

functioning of the banking system.

35. CRAs like LexisNexis sell millions of consumer reports (often called

“credit reports” or “reports”) per year, and also sell credit and risk scores.

9
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 9 of 25
36. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), CRAs like LexisNexis are required

“to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the

information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.”

37. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b and 1681e(a), CRAs must also maintain

reasonable procedures to assure that consumer reports are sold only for legitimate

“permissible purposes.”

38. LexisNexis’s consumer reports generally contain the following

information:

(a) Header/Identifying Information: this section generally includes

the consumer’s name, current and prior addresses, date of birth,

and phone numbers;

(b) Tradeline Information: this section pertains to consumer credit

history, and includes the type of credit account, credit limit or

loan amount, account balance, payment history, and status;

record information, such as bankruptcy filings; and,

(d) Credit Inquiries: this section lists every entity that has accessed

the consumer’s file through a “hard inquiry” (i.e., consumer-

initiated activities, such as applications for credit cards, to rent

10
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 10 of 25
an apartment, to open a deposit account, or for other services) or

“soft inquiry” (i.e., user-initiated inquiries like prescreening).

39. The LexisNexis obtains consumer information from various sources.

Some consumer information is sent directly to the CRA by furnishers like SoFi.

40. The majority of institutions that offer financial services (e.g., banks,

creditors, and lenders) rely upon consumer reports from CRAs like LexisNexis to

make lending decisions.

41. Those institutions also use credit scores, and other proprietary third-

party algorithms (or “scoring” models), including debt-to-income ratios, to interpret

the information in a consumer’s consumer report, which is based on the amount of

reported debt, payment history, and date of delinquencies contained in LexisNexis

consumer reports.

42. The information LexisNexis’s reports include in a consumer report

contributes to a consumer’s overall creditworthiness and determines their credit and

risk scores.

43. FICO Scores are calculated using information contained in the Credit

Bureau Defendants’ consumer reports.

44. LexisNexis knows that lenders also consider a consumer’s credit

history, such as accounts noted as being in collection, before deciding to extend

credit or approve financing terms.

11
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 11 of 25
45. LexisNexis also knows that including information such as accounts

noted as in collection negatively impact consumers’ ability to obtain credit, or such

notations cause creditors to refuse to lend to consumers or lend to them at higher

interest rates than the lenders offer consumers without such accounts in their credit

histories.

46. LexisNexis routinely reports inaccurate and materially misleading

information about consumers like Plaintiff, without verifying or updating it as

required by Section 1681e(b) of the FCRA.

47. LexisNexis fails to employ reasonable procedures to assure the

maximum possible accuracy of the information that they report about consumers,

including but not limited to, account balances, account statuses, payment histories,

and payment statuses.

48. Consumers have filed thousands of lawsuits and FTC and Consumer

Financial Protection Bureau Complaints against LexisNexis for their inaccurate

credit reporting.

49. Thus, LexisNexis is on continued notice of its inadequate reporting

procedures. Specifically, LexisNexis is on notice that its inadequate procedures

regularly result in the reporting of inaccurate balances, account statuses, payment

histories, and payment statuses.

12
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 12 of 25
50. The FCRA allows for a remedy for a “willful” violation. A willful act

or violation includes, “not only knowing violations of [the statute], but reckless ones

as well.” Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, at 57 (2007). A “reckless”

action includes conduct whereby “the company ran a risk of violating the law

substantially greater than the risk associated with a reading that was merely

careless.” Id. at 69.

51. Proof of willfulness includes, for example, “evidence that other

consumers have lodged complaints similar to” the one made by Plaintiff and a failure

to make the correction right away. Dalton, 257 F.3d at 418; Saunders v. Branch

Banking & Trust Co. of Va., 526 F.3d 142, 151 (4th Cir. 2008).

52. The FCRA section at issue here, and informative guidance, have been

around now for over 50 years. The language of § 1681e(b) has not changed.

LexisNexis’ dispute investigation obligations under § 1681i(a) have not changed.

The FCRA’s caution of LexisNexis’ “grave responsibilities” to ensure accuracy has

not changed.

53. LexisNexis has received numerous disputes and other complaints

regarding the furnisher at issue in this case—sufficient to require a reasonable

company to at least examine or investigate further before blindly accepting further

reporting.

13
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 13 of 25
Plaintiff Attempts to Obtain Credit, But
Is Rejected Because of Inaccurate LexisNexis Reporting

54. In February 2024, Plaintiff attempted to purchase a BMW from a dealer

in Charlotte.

55. The dealer attempted to finance the purchase through Ally Bank, which

uses SageStream (a LexisNexis affiliate) as the source for credit reports for

applicants like Plaintiff.

56. Ally rejected Plaintiff’s application, and the dealer’s representative

explained to Plaintiff that the problem was a credit inquiry from SoFi that listed as

the purpose an account being in collection, which was untrue.

57. Plaintiff has never had a SoFi account, so there would be no need for

SoFi to access Plaintiff’s credit at all, let alone to collect on an account.

58. Plaintiff also did not apply with SoFi for credit in 2023 or 2024.

59. Yet, SoFi pulled Plaintiff’s credit from LexisNexis at least 4 times

during that period.

60. Plaintiff contacted LexisNexis and obtained a copy of his consumer

report, which confirmed what the dealer told him about the SoFi collection inquiry.

61. Plaintiff disputed the inaccuracy with LexisNexis, but it did not correct

the error.

14
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 14 of 25
62. Plaintiff applied for financing of a BMW again in October 2024, with

the same result.

63. The dealer used Ally for financing, and Ally pulled a report from

LexisNexis to judge Plaintiff’s creditworthiness.

64. The LexisNexis report again listed the SoFi inquiry for collections,

which remained inaccurate and unaltered despite Plaintiff’s dispute to LexisNexis.

65. Ally again rejected Plaintiff’s application, and the dealer’s

representative again explained resulted from the SoFi collection inquiry.

66. Plaintiff disputed the inaccuracy with LexisNexis a second time, but

LexisNexis again did not correct the inaccuracy.

67. LexisNexis therefore violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to

establish or follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of

the credit information it published and maintained concerning Plaintiff.

68. LexisNexis further violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681i by failing to reasonably

investigate Plaintiff’s disputes of inaccurate information in his LexisNexis report.

69. Upon information and belief, LexisNexis failed to conduct a reasonable

reinvestigation of Plaintiff’s disputes, relying just on what SoFi reported to it as a

substitute for its own, statutorily mandated investigation.

70. Thereafter, LexisNexis failed to correct or delete the SoFi inquiry, in

violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).

15
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 15 of 25
71. For its part, SoFi violated the FCRA by repeatedly accessing Plaintiff’s

credit without having an FCRA permissible purpose for doing so. SoFi pulled

Plaintiff’s credit repeatedly in 2023 and 2024, but Plaintiff was not applying for

credit with SoFi and had no accounts with SoFi.

Plaintiff’s Damages

72. Plaintiff reasonably believes that LexisNexis continues to furnish data

about him to creditors that is inaccurate despite his disputes. He has been rejected

twice for a simple vehicle loan, and there is nothing indicating that LexisNexis’s

reporting would be different if he applied for financing today.

73. As a result of the inaccurate reporting associated with the SoFi account,

LexisNexis inhibited Plaintiff’s ability to obtain credit on two occasions.

74. At all times pertinent hereto, LexisNexis 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

LexisNexis.

75. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of Defendants, as well as that

of their 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.

16
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 16 of 25
76. As a standard practice, LexisNexis does not conduct independent

investigations in response to consumer disputes. Instead, they merely parrot the

response of the credit 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 § 1681i(a) must consist of something more than

merely parroting information received from other sources. Therefore, a

‘reinvestigation’ that merely shifts the burden back to the consumer and the credit

grantor cannot fulfill the obligations contemplated by the statute.”); Apodaca v.

Discover Fin. Servs., 417 F. Supp. 2d 1220, 1230-31 (D.N.M. 2006) (noting that

credit reporting agencies may not rely on automated procedures that make only

superficial inquiries once the consumer has notified it that information is disputed);

Gorman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 2008 WL 4934047, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19,

2008).

77. LexisNexis is aware of the shortcomings of its procedures and

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

LexisNexis’s violations of the FCRA are willful.

78. SoFi’s violations are likewise willful. SoFi knew or should have known

at the time it accessed Plaintiff’s LexisNexis consumer report that it had no basis for

doing so. Despite lacking such a basis, SoFi accessed Plaintiff’s consumer report

anyway. Such a violation is willful.

17
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 17 of 25
79. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff

suffered damage by loss of credit; loss of ability to purchase and benefit from his

good credit rating; detriment to his credit rating; the expenditure of time and money

disputing and trying to correct the inaccurate credit reporting; the expenditure of

labor and effort disputing and trying to correct the inaccurate credit reporting; and

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

and embarrassment of credit denials.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)
Failure to Follow Reasonable Procedures to Assure Maximum Possible
Accuracy
(Against Defendant LexisNexis)

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

forth in preceding paragraphs as if fully stated herein.

81. 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).

18
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 18 of 25
82. On numerous occasions, Defendant LexisNexis prepared patently false

consumer reports concerning Plaintiff.

83. LexisNexis readily sold such false reports to one or more third parties,

thereby misrepresenting Plaintiff, and ultimately Plaintiff’s creditworthiness.

84. Defendant LexisNexis violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to

establish or to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy

in the preparation of the credit reports and credit files it published and maintained

concerning Plaintiff.

85. As a result of LexisNexis conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff

suffered damage by loss of credit; loss of ability to purchase and benefit from his

good credit rating; detriment to his credit rating; the expenditure of time and money

disputing and trying to correct the inaccurate credit reporting; the expenditure of

labor and effort disputing and trying to correct the inaccurate credit reporting; and

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

and embarrassment of credit denials.

86. LexisNexis’s conduct, actions, and inactions were 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, it was

negligent, entitling Plaintiff to recover under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.

19
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 19 of 25
87. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from LexisNexis

in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and/or §

1681o.

COUNT II
15 U.S.C. § 1681i
Failure to Perform a Reasonable Reinvestigation
(Second Claim for Relief Against Defendant LexisNexis)

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

forth in preceding paragraphs as if fully stated herein.

89. The FCRA mandates that a CRA conducts an investigation of the

accuracy of information “[I]f the completeness or accuracy of any item of

information contained in a consumer’s file” is disputed by the consumer. See 15

U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1). The Act imposed a 30-day time limit for the completion of

such an investigation. Id.

90. The FCRA provides that if a CRA conducts an investigation of disputed

information and confirms that the information is in fact inaccurate or is unable to

verify the accuracy of the disputed information, the CRA is required to delete that

item of information from the consumer’s file. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(A).

91. On at least one occasion during the past two years, Plaintiff disputed

the inaccurate information with LexisNexis and requested that it correct and/or

delete a specific item in his credit file that is patently inaccurate, misleading, and

20
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 20 of 25
highly damaging to her, namely the SoFi credit inquiry noting that it was for

collection of an account.

92. In response to Plaintiff’s disputes, LexisNexis failed to conduct a

reinvestigation, or such investigation was so shoddy as to allow patently false,

logically inconsistent, and damaging information to remain in Plaintiff’s credit file.

93. LexisNexis 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 the notices of dispute from Plaintiff; and by failing to maintain

reasonable procedures with which to filter and verify disputed information in

Plaintiff’s credit file.

94. As a result of LexisNexis’s conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff

suffered damage by loss of credit; loss of ability to purchase and benefit from his

good credit rating; detriment to his credit rating; the expenditure of time and money

disputing and trying to correct the inaccurate credit reporting; the expenditure of

labor and effort disputing and trying to correct the inaccurate credit reporting; and

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

and embarrassment of credit denials.

21
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 21 of 25
95. LexisNexis’s conduct, actions, and inactions were 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, it was

negligent, entitling Plaintiff to recover under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.

96. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from LexisNexis

in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and/or §

1681o.

COUNT III
15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f)
Accessing Plaintiff’s Consumer Report Without A Permissible Purpose
(Claim for Relief Against Defendant SoFi)

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

forth in preceding paragraphs as if fully stated herein.

98. SoFi violated § 1681b(f) of the FCRA by obtaining Plaintiff’s

consumer report without a permissible purpose.

99. SoFi violated Plaintiff’s privacy when it obtained a consumer report (1)

without confirming Plaintiff’s identity, and (2) for a purpose outside of those

allowed by Congress pursuant to § 1681b(f).

100. Plaintiff suffered real and actual harm and injury and is entitled to

actual damages under both 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o.

22
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 22 of 25
101. By accessing Plaintiff’s private information without a statutorily-

permissible purpose, SoFi violated Plaintiff’s privacy and subjected Plaintiff to

further fear and apprehension surrounding identity theft.

102. SoFi not only obtained unauthorized access to Plaintiff’s information,

but appears to have used that information to try and collect an account Plaintiff did

not owe.

103. In every step of the process, SoFi placed its own desire to obtain money

Plaintiff did not owe ahead of Plaintiff’s statutory right to privacy and the security

of Plaintiff’s information.

104. As a result of SoFi’s conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff suffered

damage by loss of credit; loss of ability to purchase and benefit from his good credit

rating; detriment to his credit rating; the expenditure of time and money disputing

and trying to correct the inaccurate credit reporting; the expenditure of labor and

effort disputing and trying to correct the inaccurate credit reporting; and emotional

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

embarrassment of credit denials.

105. SoFi’s conduct, action, and inaction were 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, it was negligent, entitling

Plaintiff to recover under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.

23
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 23 of 25
106. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from SoFi in an

amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and/or § 1681o.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

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

triable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

a) Determining that Defendants negligently and/or willfully violated the FCRA;

b) Awarding Plaintiff actual, statutory, and punitive damages as provided by the

FCRA;

c) Awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by the

FCRA; and,

d) Granting further relief, in law or equity, as this Court may deem appropriate

and just.

Respectfully submitted this 13th day of June 2025.

TIMOTHY J. McCLUSKY,

By: /s/ Leonard A. Bennett
Leonard A. Bennett, NCSB #21576
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
Newport News, VA 23601
(757) 930-3660 – Telephone
(757) 930-3662 – Facsimile

24
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 24 of 25
Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

25
Case 3:25-cv-00404-KDB-SCR Document 1 Filed 06/13/25 Page 25 of 25

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.ncwd.119933.1.0.pdf
Size: 323,152 bytes
SHA-256: 0b8d4fdb5d2dd2bf13db338c984155c9f34f572af873ead3cc05c1f3178517ec
Our copy: gov.uscourts.ncwd.119933.1.0.pdf
Original: www.courtlistener.com

Complaint

Summary

Full text

File and source

Related records