Complaint

Date: 2025-07-24

Summary

A complaint filed July 24, 2025 as Document 1 in Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, by plaintiff Kenneth Lewis against Trans Union, LLC and LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. The complaint alleges that the defendants, as consumer reporting agencies, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. It alleges that both companies place deceased notations on credit reports based on furnisher codes without verifying that the consumer has died, and report no credit score for such consumers. The final count cites 15 U.S.C. § 1681g for failing to provide credit disclosures. The complaint seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and demands a jury trial.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 1 of 35

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

KENETH LEWIS,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.:
vs.
JURY TRIAL
TRANS UNION, LLC and DEMANDED
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS,
INC.
Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Kenneth Lewis, (“Plaintiff”), a living, breathing consumer, brings this

Complaint against Trans Union, LLC (“Trans Union”) and LexisNexis Risk

Solutions, Inc. (“LexisNexis”) and states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

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

increase in the accumulation and processing of data concerning individual

American consumers. Data technology, whether it is used by businesses, banks,

the Internal Revenue Service or other institutions, allows information concerning
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 2 of 35

individual consumers to flow instantaneously to requesting parties. Such timely

information is intended to lead to faster and better decision-making by its recipients

and, in theory, all of society should ultimately benefit from the resulting

convenience and efficiency.

2. However, unfortunately this information has also become readily

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

and do sustain substantial damage, both economically and emotionally, whenever

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

In fact, Defendants acknowledge this potential for misuse and resulting damage

every time they sell their credit monitoring services to a consumer.

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

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

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

commonly known as consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”).

4. Defendant LexisNexis is a CRA as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f).

5. Defendant Trans Union is a CRA as defined by the Fair Credit

Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f).
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 3 of 35

6. 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.

7. 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.

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

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

banking system:

The banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit
reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the
banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the
public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the
banking system.

See 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(1).

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
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 4 of 35

in great danger of having his life and character reduced to impersonal
“blips” and key-punch holes in a stolid and unthinking machine which
can literally ruin his reputation without cause, and make him
unemployable or uninsurable, as well as deny him the opportunity to
obtain a mortgage or buy a home. We are not nearly as much concerned
over the possible mistaken turn-down of a consumer for a luxury item
as we are over the possible destruction of his good name without his
knowledge and without reason. * * * [A]s Shakespeare said, the loss of
one’s good name is beyond price and makes one poor indeed (emphasis
added).

Bryant v. TRW, Inc., 689 F.2d 72, 79 (6th Cir. 1982) [quoting 116 Cong. Rec.

36570 (1970)].

10. 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.

11. In light of these important findings and purposes, Congress specifically

noted “a need to insure that [CRAs] exercise their grave responsibilities with
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 5 of 35

fairness, impartiality, and respect for the consumer’s right to privacy.” See 15

U.S.C. § 1681(a)(4).

12. This action seeks actual, statutory, and punitive damages, costs and

attorneys’ fees for Plaintiff against Defendant for their willful and/or negligent

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

herein.

THE PARTIES

13. Plaintiff Kenneth Lewis (“Plaintiff”) is a natural person who resides in

the State of Florida, and is a “consumer” as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C. §

1681a(c).

14. Defendant Trans Union, LLC (“Trans Union”) is a limited liability

company that resides in the State of Georgia and in the Northern District.

15. Trans Union is a “consumer reporting agency” as defined in 15 U.S.C.

§ 1681a(f). Trans Union 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.

16. Defendant LexisNexis Risk Solutions (“LexisNexis”) is a limited

liability company that resides in the State of Georgia and in the Northern District.
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 6 of 35

17. LexisNexis is a “consumer reporting agency” as defined in 15 U.S.C. §

1681a(f). LexisNexis is regularly engaged in the business of assembling,

evaluating, and disseminating information concerning consumers for the purpose

of furnishing consumer reports, as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d) to third parties.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

18. 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.

19. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)

because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims

occurred in this District.

20. Plaintiff mailed multiple written disputes regarding inaccurate

information in his LexisNexis credit report to LexisNexis located in Fulton County;

Atlanta, Georgia.

21. Defendant LexisNexis received Plaintiff's multiple written disputes in

Fulton County; Atlanta, Georgia.

22. Upon receipt of Plaintiff's disputes, Defendant LexisNexis forwarded

such disputes to furnishers via Automated Consumer Dispute Verification

electronic forms. Upon completion of its investigations furnishers responded to
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 7 of 35

Defendant LexisNexis' electronic communications, which originated from Atlanta,

Georgia, by sending its results electronically to Defendant LexisNexis in Fulton

County; Atlanta, Georgia

23. Defendant LexisNexis then processed the dispute results from

furnishers at its National Consumer Assistance Center in Atlanta, Georgia, and

mailed Plaintiff its final dispute results from Atlanta, Georgia.

FACTS

The Credit Bureau Defendants’ Practices Concerning the Sale of Credit
Reports on the “Deceased”

24. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis sell millions of consumer

reports (often called “credit reports” or “reports”) per day, and also sell credit

scores.

25. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), consumer reporting agencies, like

Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis, are required “to follow reasonable

procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning

the individual about whom the report relates.”

26. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b and 1681e(a), consumer reporting

agencies, like Defendantss, must maintain reasonable procedures to assure that

reports are sold only for legitimate “permissible purposes.”
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 8 of 35

27. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis routinely place a “deceased”

notation or marking on credit reports when they are advised by any of their many

data furnishing sources (such as banks and debt collectors) that a given consumer

is deceased.

28. Defendants Trans Union’s and LexisNexis’ furnishing sources identify

“deceased” consumers by marking the “status” of such consumer’s responsibility

for any subject account with an “X” code in the “ECOA” field of an electronic data

input format used in the credit reporting industry, known as Metro or Metro 2.

29. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis do not request or require a

death certificate from any of their data sources which advise that a consumer is

“deceased” before placing a “deceased” mark in that consumer’s credit file.

30. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis do not request or require any

proof from any data source which advises that a consumer is “deceased” showing

that the consumer is, in fact, deceased before placing a “deceased” mark on that

consumer’s report.

31. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis do not independently verify

with any source or furnisher that a consumer is, in fact, deceased before placing a

“deceased” mark on that consumer’s report.
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 9 of 35

32. In some cases, in order to assure accuracy, Defendants Trans Union and

LexisNexis may send letters and/or other communications to consumers when

certain information that may be considered suspicious or unreliable is furnished

about said consumers to be placed in their credit files, such as in cases where

consumers have a freeze or fraud alert on their credit report, or in accordance with

certain state laws, such as the consumer laws of Colorado. Defendants Trans Union

and LexisNexis do not have any procedure to notify consumers (such as a next of

kin or executor or administrator of the consumer’s estate) when an “X” deceased

code is furnished to it to be placed in said consumer’s credit file or report.

33. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis regularly receive the “Death

Master File” from the Social Security Administration, including weekly and/or

monthly updates, listing by social security number those consumers that the

government believes to be deceased. But Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis

do not cross-reference the “X” code received from data furnishers with the Death

Master File in order to determine whether any given consumer reported as

deceased via a furnishing source is also on the Death Master File before selling a

credit report about said consumer, or at any time.
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 10 of 35

34. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis will only use the Death Master

File to sell additional products for an additional fee, which are designed to show

whether a given consumer is truly deceased.

35. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis do not employ any procedures

at all to assure that a consumer with a “deceased” mark on their report is, in fact,

actually deceased before placing the “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report

and selling that report for profit.

36. Even in instances where other data on the face of the consumer’s report

indicates that he/she is not deceased, Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis do

not employ any procedures to assure that a consumer with a “deceased” mark on

their report is, in fact, actually deceased before placing the “deceased” mark in that

consumer’s file.

37. Even in instances where the purportedly deceased consumer

communicates directly with Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis, Defendants

Trans Union and LexisNexis do not employ any procedures to assure that a

consumer with a “deceased” mark on their report is, in fact, actually deceased

before placing the “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report.
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 11 of 35

38. Once a “deceased” mark is placed upon a consumer’s report,

Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis will not calculate and will not provide a

credit score for that consumer.

39. Upon Defendants Trans Union’s and LexisNexis’s reports with a

“deceased” mark sold to third parties, Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis

never calculate or provide a credit score for that consumer and instead reports that

consumer’s credit score as “N/A.”

40. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis know that third party credit

issuers require a credit score in order to process a given credit application.

41. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis know that consumers without

credit scores are unable to secure any credit from most credit issuers.

42. Defendant Trans Union and LexisNexis know that living consumers are

routinely turned down for credit specifically because they are reporting them as

“deceased” and without a credit score.

43. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis have been put on notice for

years through consumer disputes and lawsuits that living, breathing consumers are

turned down for credit specifically because they are reporting them as “deceased”

and without a credit score.
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 12 of 35

44. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis have received and

documented many disputes from consumers complaining that their credit reports

had them erroneously marked as “deceased.”

45. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis know that thousands of

consumers are erroneously marked as “deceased” on their credit reports via an

erroneous furnishing of the “X” code, even when said consumers (and their dates

of birth and social security numbers) are not on the Death Master File and are, in

fact, alive.

46. Nevertheless, Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis do not employ

any procedures to assure that a consumer marked as “deceased” on their credit

reports is, in fact, deceased.

47. Even consumers who dispute the erroneous “deceased” status on their

Trans Union and LexisNexis credit reports continue to be erroneously marked as

deceased unless the furnishing source which provided the erroneous “X” code in

the first instance decides to change the code.

48. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis do not have any independent

procedure to change an erroneous deceased status on their own and will merely

parrot their furnishing source in the case of a reinvestigation into the accuracy of
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 13 of 35

the deceased status upon a consumer’s report, a reinvestigation which is triggered

by a consumer dispute.

49. Nor do Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis employ any

procedures to limit or stop the furnishing of reports to third parties for consumers

that they have marked as “deceased” under any circumstances.

50. For years after a consumer’s actual death, Defendants Trans Union and

LexisNexis will continue to sell credit reports about that consumer.

51. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis will only remove a deceased

consumer’s file from their respective credit reporting databases when it is no longer

valuable to them—meaning that no one is continuing to purchase reports about that

consumer.

52. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis charge third parties a fee for

reports with a mark that a consumer is deceased (“reports on the deceased”) as they

would for any other report.

53. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis profit from the sale of reports

on deceased consumers.

54. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis have in their credit reporting

database many “deceased” tradelines corresponding to distinct credit files for

individual consumers that they have marked as “deceased.”
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 14 of 35

55. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis know that truly deceased

consumers do not apply for credit.

56. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis know that the credit

information and reports of truly deceased persons are used by criminals to commit

identity theft or credit fraud. Indeed, identity theft using the personal identifying

information of deceased consumers is known to Defendants Trans Union and

LexisNexis to be a common and major source of identity theft.

57. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis know that identity theft and

credit fraud are serious and widespread problems in our society.

58. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis warn the relatives of truly

deceased consumers that identity theft can be committed using the credit reports

and information of the deceased, and require relatives to provide a death certificate

or executorship papers, among other forms of proof, before accessing the deceased

consumer’s credit information or report.

59. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis have no similar death

certificate, executorship paper, or any other proof requirements for their data

sources, which report a consumer as deceased or for the purchasers of their reports

who access the purportedly deceased consumer’s information.
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 15 of 35

60. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis sell reports on supposedly

deceased consumers to third parties in an automated fashion and without any

specific or general certification that could reasonably explain a “permissible

purpose” for purchasing or using a (supposedly) deceased consumer’s credit

history and/or report.

61. For consumers who are deceased, there rarely, if ever, exists a

permissible purpose under the FCRA for Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis

to sell their credit reports, absent a court order.

62. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis know that such reports

contain a vast amount of personal identifying and credit account information on

the supposedly deceased consumer, information that can be used to commit

identity theft or for other fraudulent purposes.

The Credit Bureaus’ Method for Considering Consumer Credit Report
Disputes

63. The credit industry has constructed a method of numeric-alpha codes

for considering consumer credit report disputes. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(D).

64. The credit bureaus, LexisNexis, Experian, Trans Union, and Innovis,

have thus created the Online Solution for Complete and Accurate Reporting, or e-

OSCAR, as the credit industries’ standard of performance. e-OSCAR allows the
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 16 of 35

credit bureaus to create and data furnishers to respond to disputes initiated by

consumers by routing credit reporting agency-created prompts for automated

consumer dispute verifications to the appropriate data furnishers. e-OSCAR

utilizes a numeric-alpha language specific to the credit reporting industry.

65. That lexicon or unique language is commonly referred to in the credit

reporting industry as “Metro II.” It is also known industry wide as the CDIA’s

“Credit Reporting Resource Guide.”

66. Metro II is driven by numeric codes that translate into specific alpha

representations about consumers’ creditworthiness and character that will

ultimately appear on credit reports issued to third parties who make credit,

insurance, rental, and employment decisions regarding consumers.

67. Metro II codes are used on an industry wide form known within the

credit industry as an Automated Consumer Dispute Verification (“ACDV”)

electronic form.

68. The ACDVs have many fields in their body for use in effecting

thorough and complete communications between data furnishers and the credit

reporting agencies.

69. These ACDV “fields” have various titles for the many substantive areas

into which the Metro II codes can be entered.
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 17 of 35

70. Upon receiving a dispute from a consumer, the credit bureaus have an

automated system that prepares ACDVs that are sent to each of the data furnishers

that are reporting the credit accounts disputed by a consumer.

71. The data furnishers then have an obligation under the FCRA to conduct

a reasonable reinvestigation with respect to the disputed credit account and review

all relevant information provided by the consumer with the dispute to determine

whether the disputed credit account information is accurate and/or belongs to the

disputing consumer. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b).

72. Once the data furnisher completes its reinvestigation, it will code the

ACDV accordingly, representing either that the disputed account was verified as

accurate and belonging to the disputing consumer, updating information related to

the account, or deleting the account entirely, and return the ACDV to the respective

credit bureau(s) via e-OSCAR.

Defendant Trans Union Reports Plaintiff as Deceased on or about October 15,
2023

73. Upon information and belief, as of October 15, 2023, a deceased

notation was reflected in Plaintiff’s Trans Union credit report.
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 18 of 35

74. As of October 15, 2023, the above-referenced notation was reporting

inaccurately in Plaintiff’s Trans Union credit report because Plaintiff is not

deceased.

Defendant LexisNexis Reports Plaintiff as Deceased on or about October 15,
2023

75. Upon information and belief, as of October 15, 2023, a deceased

notation was reflected in Plaintiff’s LexisNexis credit report.

76. As of October 15, 2023, the above-referenced notation was reporting

inaccurately in Plaintiff’s LexisNexis credit report because Plaintiff is not

deceased.

Transportation Alliance Bank Denies Plaintiff Credit Due to Defendants’
Inaccurate Credit Reporting on April 9, 2024

77. On or about April 9, 2024, Plaintiff attempted to obtain credit and

submitted a credit application.

78. Shortly thereafter, on or about April 9, 2024, Transportation Alliance

Bank denied Plaintiff’s credit application based upon the contents of Plaintiff’s

credit reports.

79. Specifically, Defendants were reporting deceased on Plaintiff’s credit

reports.
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 19 of 35

80. Plaintiff takes great pride in Plaintiff’s good name and established

credit rating and works hard to ensure that Plaintiff’s bills are paid in-full and on-

time each month. Plaintiff believes and understands that Plaintiff’s credit record

with Plaintiff’s creditors is good, so Plaintiff could not imagine how Plaintiff’s

credit application had been denied.

Plaintiff’s Dispute with Trans Union on April 11, 2024

81. On or about April 11, 2024, Plaintiff feeling shocked, surprised, and

embarrassed because of Defendant’s inaccurate reporting, Plaintiff mailed a

written dispute via certified mail to Trans Union, disputing the deceased notation

in Plaintiff’s credit report. Plaintiff requested that Trans Union reinvestigate the

disputed information, correct the reporting, and send corrected copies of Plaintiff’s

credit report.

82. Plaintiff’s April 11, 2024 dispute specifically included Plaintiff’s full

name, date of birth, Social Security number, and current address so that the credit

bureau would be able to properly identify and locate Plaintiff’s credit file.

83. Plaintiff also attached the following documents to Plaintiff’s April 11,

2024, dispute to serve as further proof of life: a photocopy of Plaintiff’s current

driver’s license and Social Security card.
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 20 of 35

Trans Union’s Failure to Respond to Plaintiff’s April 11, 2024 Dispute

84. Defendant Trans Union did not respond to Plaintiff’s dispute.

85. Defendant Trans Union did not indicate that Plaintiff’s dispute was

found to be frivolous or irrelevant.

86. Defendant Trans Union failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation

of Plaintiff’s dispute, or any reinvestigation whatsoever, to determine whether the

disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed

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

87. Defendant Trans Union failed to provide the requested credit disclosure

in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681g.

Capital City Bank Denies Plaintiff Credit Due to Defendants’ Inaccurate
Credit Reporting on April 12, 2024

88. On or about April 12, 2024, Plaintiff attempted to obtain credit and

submitted a credit application.

89. Shortly thereafter, on or about April 12, 2024, Capital City Bank denied

Plaintiff’s credit application based upon the contents of Plaintiff’s credit reports.

90. Specifically, Defendants were reporting deceased on Plaintiff’s credit

reports.
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 21 of 35

91. Plaintiff takes great pride in Plaintiff’s good name and established

credit rating and works hard to ensure that Plaintiff’s bills are paid in-full and on-

time each month. Plaintiff believes and understands that Plaintiff’s credit record

with Plaintiff’s creditors is good, so Plaintiff could not imagine how Plaintiff’s

credit application had been denied.

Defendant Trans Union Fails to Provide Credit Disclosure on or about April
18, 2024

92. On or about April 18, 2024, Plaintiff requested a credit disclosure from

Defendant.

93. Defendant Trans Union failed to provide the requested credit disclosure

in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681g.

Plaintiff Sees Inaccurate Information on LexisNexis Credit Report on or
about April 25, 2024

94. As of April 25, 2024, Plaintiff’s LexisNexis credit report contained

information that belongs to another consumer.

95. Defendant mixed another consumer’s personal and account information

into Plaintiff’s credit report despite the fact that numerous discrepancies exist

between their personal identification information. The discrepancies that should
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 22 of 35

have caused Defendant to realize Plaintiff is not the same person as this other

consumer include the following:

a) Plaintiff’s legal name is Kenneth Lewis and the personal and account

information Defendants mixed into Plaintiff’s credit reports belongs

to another consumer; and

b) Plaintiff’s Social Security number is different than the other

consumer’s Social Security number.

Plaintiff’s Dispute with Trans Union on or about May 24, 2024

96. On or about May 24, 2024, Plaintiff feeling shocked, surprised, and

embarrassed because of Defendant’s inaccurate reporting, Plaintiff mailed a

written dispute via certified mail to Trans Union, disputing the deceased notation

in Plaintiff’s credit report. Plaintiff requested that Trans Union reinvestigate the

disputed information, correct the reporting, and send corrected copies of Plaintiff’s

credit report.

97. Plaintiff’s May 24, 2024 dispute specifically included Plaintiff’s full

name, date of birth, Social Security number, and current address so that the credit

bureau would be able to properly identify and locate Plaintiff’s credit file.
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 23 of 35

98. Plaintiff also attached the following documents to Plaintiff’s April 11,

2024, dispute to serve as further proof of life: a photocopy of Plaintiff’s current

driver’s license and Social Security card.

Trans Union’s Failure to Respond to Plaintiff’s May 24, 2024 Dispute

99. Defendant Trans Union did not respond to Plaintiff’s dispute.

100. Defendant Trans Union did not indicate that Plaintiff’s dispute was

found to be frivolous or irrelevant.

101. Defendant Trans Union failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation

of Plaintiff’s dispute, or any reinvestigation whatsoever, to determine whether the

disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed

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

102. Defendant Trans Union failed to provide the requested credit disclosure

in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681g.

Transportation Alliance Bank Denies Plaintiff Credit Due to Defendants’
Inaccurate Credit Reporting on August 29, 2024

103. On or about August 29, 2024, Plaintiff attempted to obtain credit and

submitted a credit application.
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 24 of 35

104. Shortly thereafter, on or about August 29, 2024, Transportation

Alliance Bank denied Plaintiff’s credit application based upon the contents of

Plaintiff’s credit reports.

105. Specifically, Defendants were reporting deceased on Plaintiff’s credit

reports.

106. Plaintiff takes great pride in Plaintiff’s good name and established

credit rating and works hard to ensure that Plaintiff’s bills are paid in-full and on-

time each month. Plaintiff believes and understands that Plaintiff’s credit record

with Plaintiff’s creditors is good, so Plaintiff could not imagine how Plaintiff’s

credit application had been denied.

Plaintiff’s Dispute with LexisNexis on October 8, 2024

107. On or about October 8, 2024, Plaintiff feeling shocked, surprised, and

embarrassed because of Defendant’s inaccurate reporting, Plaintiff mailed a

written dispute via certified mail to LexisNexis, disputing the deceased notation in

Plaintiff’s credit report. Plaintiff requested that LexisNexis reinvestigate the

disputed information, correct the reporting, and send corrected copies of Plaintiff’s

credit report.
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 25 of 35

108. Plaintiff’s October 8, 2024 dispute specifically included Plaintiff’s full

name, date of birth, Social Security number, and current address so that the credit

bureau would be able to properly identify and locate Plaintiff’s credit file.

109. Plaintiff also attached the following documents to Plaintiff’s October

8, 2024, dispute to serve as further proof of life: a photocopy of Plaintiff’s current

driver’s license and Social Security card.

LexisNexis’ Failure to Respond to Plaintiff’s October 8, 2024 Dispute

110. Defendant LexisNexis did not respond to Plaintiff’s dispute.

111. Defendant LexisNexis did not indicate that Plaintiff’s dispute was

found to be frivolous or irrelevant.

112. Defendant LexisNexis failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of

Plaintiff’s dispute, or any reinvestigation whatsoever, to determine whether the

disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed

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

113. Defendant LexisNexis failed to provide the requested credit disclosure

in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681g.
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 26 of 35

114. In the last two years, Plaintiff has disputed the Defendants' reporting

Plaintiff as deceased, causing credit denials, which will be further identified during

discovery.

115. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis

were 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 Defendants herein.

116. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of Defendants Trans Union

and LexisNexis, as well as that of their agents, servants, and/or employees, was

intentional, willful, reckless, and in grossly negligent disregard for federal law and

the rights of Plaintiff herein.

117. As a result of the “deceased” annotations contained throughout

Plaintiff’s credit reports, Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis made it

practically impossible for Plaintiff to obtain credit.

118. As a standard practice, Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis do not

conduct independent investigations in response to consumer disputes. Instead, they

merely parrot 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 § 1681i(a) must consist
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 27 of 35

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).

119. Consistent with their standard policies and procedures, Defendants

Trans Union and LexisNexis automatically generated their “investigation” results

once the aforementioned furnishers provided their responses to Plaintiff’s disputes,

verifying that Plaintiff was deceased, and no employee from any of the credit

bureaus took any additional steps to review Plaintiff’s documentation, information,

or the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) Death Master File, which

Defendants purchase from the SSA, after the furnishers provided their responses

to Plaintiff’s disputes.

120. Instead, Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis blindly accepted the

aforementioned furnishers’ incomplete version of the facts and continued to report
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 28 of 35

the inaccurate, derogatory information on Plaintiff’s credit reports, namely, that he

is deceased.

121. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis continue the practice of

parroting the response from furnishers even though they have been repeatedly sued

for failing to conduct reasonable investigations as required by the FCRA.

122. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis do not intend to modify their

dispute-processing procedures because doing so would drastically increase their

operating expenses.

123. Instead, Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis intentionally choose

not to comply with the FCRA to lower their costs. Accordingly, Defendants Trans

Union and LexisNexis’ violations of the FCRA are willful.

124. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis

were acting by and through their agents, servants, and/or employees who were

acting within the course and scope of their agency or employment, and under the

direct supervision and control of the Defendant herein.

125. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of Defendants Trans Union

and LexisNexis, as well as that of their agents, servants, and/or employees, was

intentional, willful, reckless, and in grossly negligent disregard for federal law and

the rights of Plaintiff herein.
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 29 of 35

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

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

126. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in

Paragraphs 1-125 as if fully stated herein.

127. The FCRA mandates that “[w]henever a consumer reporting agency

prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure

maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about

whom the report relates.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).

128. On multiple occasions, Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis

prepared patently false consumer reports concerning Plaintiff.

129. Despite actual and implied knowledge that Plaintiff is not dead,

Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis readily sold such false reports to one or

more third parties, thereby misrepresenting Plaintiff, and ultimately, Plaintiff’s

creditworthiness.

130. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)

by failing to establish or to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 30 of 35

possible accuracy in the preparation of the credit reports and credit files they

published and maintain concerning Plaintiff.

131. As a result of Defendants Trans Union’s and LexisNexis’ conduct,

action, and inaction, Plaintiff suffered damage by loss of credit; loss of the ability

to purchase and benefit from his/her1 credit; being chilled from seeking credit

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

the blatantly inaccurate credit reporting; and emotional distress including the

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

denials, fear of financial difficulty, and the inability to obtain credit for important

life purchases.

132. Defendants Trans Union’s and LexisNexis’ conduct, action, and

inaction was willful, rendering them liable for actual or statutory damages, and

punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C.

§ 1681n. In the alternative, it was negligent, entitling Plaintiff to recover under 15

U.S.C. § 1681o.

133. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from Defendants

Trans Union and LexisNexis in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant

to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and/or § 1681o.
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 31 of 35

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

134. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in

Paragraphs 1-125 as if fully stated herein.

135. The FCRA mandates that Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis

conduct an investigation of the accuracy of information “[i]f the completeness or

accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer’s file” is disputed by

the consumer. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1). The Act impose a 30-day time

limitation for the completion of such an investigation. Id.

136. The FCRA provides that if Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis

conduct an investigation of disputed information and confirm that the information

is in fact inaccurate, or are unable to verify the accuracy of the disputed

information, they are required to delete that item of information from the

consumer’s file. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(A).

137. On multiple occasions during 2020 and 2021, Plaintiff sent written

disputes to Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis, pleading with them to comply

with their statutory reinvestigation obligations and correct and/or delete specific

items in his/her1 credit files that are patently inaccurate, misleading, and highly
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 32 of 35

damaging to him and his ability to obtain credit, namely, references to him being

“deceased.”

138. Either Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis conducted no

investigation of Plaintiff’s disputes, or such investigations were so shoddy as to

allow patently false and highly damaging information to remain in Plaintiff’s credit

files, namely, the deceased notations.

139. Defendants Trans Union and LexisNexis violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681i on

multiple occasions by failing to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine

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

the disputed information, or delete the disputed information, before the end of the

30-day period beginning on the date on which they received the notices of dispute

from Plaintiff; and by failing to maintain reasonable procedures with which to filter

and verify disputed information in Plaintiff’s credit files.

140. As a result of Defendants Trans Union’s and LexisNexis’ conduct,

action, and inaction, Plaintiff suffered damage by loss of credit; loss of the ability

to purchase and benefit from his credit; being chilled from seeking credit

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

the blatantly inaccurate credit reporting; and emotional distress including the

mental and emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment of credit
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 33 of 35

denials, fear of financial difficulty, and the inability to obtain credit for important

life purchases.

141. Defendants Trans Union’s and LexisNexis’ conduct, action, and

inaction was willful, rendering them liable for actual or statutory damages, and

punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C.

§ 1681n. In the alternative, it was negligent, entitling Plaintiff to recover under 15

U.S.C. § 1681o.

142. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from Defendants

Trans Union and LexisNexis in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant

to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and/or § 1681o.

COUNT III
15 U.S.C. § 1681g
Failure to Provide Disclosures to Plaintiff

143. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in

Paragraphs 1-125 as if fully stated herein.

144. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681g by failing to provide Plaintiff’s

credit disclosure after each request.

145. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff

suffered damage by loss of credit; loss of the ability to purchase and benefit from
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 34 of 35

Plaintiff’s credit; detriment to Plaintiff’s credit rating; the expenditure of time and

money disputing and trying to correct the inaccurate credit reporting; and

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

and embarrassment.

146. Defendants’ conduct, action, and inaction was willful, rendering them

each separately liable for actual or statutory damages, and punitive damages in an

amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. In the

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

147. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs from Defendants

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

§ 1681o.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:

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

FCRA;

b) Awarding Plaintiff actual damages, statutory, and punitive damages as

provided by the FCRA;
Case 1:25-cv-04131-ELR-LTW Document 1 Filed 07/24/25 Page 35 of 35

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

the FCRA; and

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

appropriate and just.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

148. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

Dated: July 24, 2025

/s/ Joseph P. McClelland
Joseph P. McClelland
LAW FIRM OF JOSEPH P.
MCCLELLAND, LLC
Georgia Bar No: 483407
235 East Ponce de Leon Avenue,
Suite 215
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (770) 775-0938
Fax: (470) 468-0070
Email: joseph@jacksonlaws.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.gand.346932.1.0.pdf
Size: 334,387 bytes
SHA-256: ceed7f54df6fc47d47f1cab03f91a2e618082bc9e260d6d57c4fd913a5560aa3
Our copy: gov.uscourts.gand.346932.1.0.pdf
Original: www.courtlistener.com

Complaint

Summary

Full text

File and source

Related records