FCRA Credit Report Dispute Complaint

COMPLAINT — FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT AND D.C. CONSUMER PROTECTION PROCEDURES ACT — DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Introduction
3. Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
4. Factual Allegations
5. Count I — Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) (CRA — Failure to Follow Reasonable Procedures for Accuracy)
6. Count II — Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i (CRA — Failure to Reinvestigate)
7. Count III — Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) (Furnisher — Failure to Investigate After Notice)
8. Count IV — Violation of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act, D.C. Code § 28-3904
9. Damages
10. Prayer for Relief
11. Demand for Trial by Jury
12. Signature Block
13. Verification
14. Certificate of Service
15. District of Columbia Practice Notes
16. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CIVIL ACTION NO. [________________________________]

COMPLAINT — FCRA AND D.C. CONSUMER PROTECTION PROCEDURES ACT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

2. INTRODUCTION

1. This action arises under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("CPPA"), D.C. Code § 28-3901 et seq. It arises from Defendants' reporting of inaccurate information about Plaintiff and their failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation after Plaintiff disputed that information.

2. Congress enacted the FCRA "to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures" that are "fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization" of consumer credit information. 15 U.S.C. § 1681(b). The CPPA was enacted to "assure that a just mechanism exists to remedy all improper trade practices." D.C. Code § 28-3901(b)(1).

3. Defendant [CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCY] (the "CRA") is a "consumer reporting agency" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f) and a "credit reporting agency" within the meaning of D.C. Code § 28-3861(3). Defendant [FURNISHER] is a "person" who furnishes information to consumer reporting agencies within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2.

4. Plaintiff seeks actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, treble damages or $1,500 per violation under the CPPA, declaratory and injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

3. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

3.1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] ("Plaintiff") is a natural person and "consumer" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c) and D.C. Code § 28-3901(a)(2), residing at [ADDRESS], Washington, D.C.

3.2. Defendant [CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCY] ("CRA") is a [STATE] [corporation / LLC] that, for consideration, regularly engages in the practice of maintaining and furnishing consumers' credit information to third parties, and is a "consumer reporting agency" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f) and a "credit reporting agency" within the meaning of D.C. Code § 28-3861(3). The CRA is also a "merchant" within the meaning of D.C. Code § 28-3901(a)(3) because it offers and supplies consumer-reporting services to consumers in the District of Columbia.

3.3. Defendant [FURNISHER / CREDITOR / DEBT COLLECTOR] ("Furnisher") is a [STATE] [corporation / LLC] that regularly furnishes information relating to consumers to one or more consumer reporting agencies, is a furnisher subject to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2, and is a "merchant" within the meaning of D.C. Code § 28-3901(a)(3).

3.4. Subject-matter jurisdiction in U.S. District Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 1681p (FCRA federal question and concurrent jurisdiction). Supplemental jurisdiction over the CPPA claim is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Alternatively, D.C. Superior Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under D.C. Code § 11-921 and over FCRA claims by concurrent grant under 15 U.S.C. § 1681p.

3.5. Venue is proper because the conduct giving rise to the claims occurred in the District of Columbia, Plaintiff resides in the District, and Defendants transact business in the District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)–(2); D.C. Code § 13-423.

3.6. Personal jurisdiction is proper under D.C. Code § 13-423 (transacting business in the District and causing tortious injury within the District).

4. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

4.1. The inaccurate item. Plaintiff's consumer file maintained by the CRA contains the following inaccurate information (the "Disputed Item"): [DESCRIBE — e.g., a [CREDITOR] account reported as charged-off / past due / belonging to Plaintiff that Plaintiff never opened / reporting an incorrect balance of $[AMOUNT] / reporting late payments that did not occur on [DATE(S)]].

4.2. The Disputed Item is inaccurate and/or materially misleading because [STATE THE TRUTH — e.g., the account was paid in full on [DATE]; the account does not belong to Plaintiff and resulted from identity theft; the balance is $0; Plaintiff was never late].

4.3. The written dispute to the CRA. On or about [__/__/____], Plaintiff sent the CRA a written dispute identifying the Disputed Item, explaining why it is inaccurate, and enclosing supporting documentation. A true and correct copy of the dispute (and proof of delivery) is attached as Exhibit A.

4.4. The dispute was not frivolous or irrelevant within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(3); it identified the specific item, the basis for the dispute, and the corrected information.

4.5. The CRA's failed reinvestigation. Upon receiving Plaintiff's dispute, the CRA was required under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a) to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, to forward all relevant information to the furnisher, and to delete or modify any information it could not verify as accurate. The CRA failed to do so. Instead, the CRA [parroted the furnisher's verification without independent review / failed to forward Plaintiff's documentation / "verified" the Disputed Item as accurate / failed to respond within thirty (30) days], and the Disputed Item remained on Plaintiff's report unchanged.

4.6. The furnisher's failed investigation. Upon information and belief, the CRA forwarded notice of Plaintiff's dispute to the furnisher pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(2). Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), the furnisher was then required to conduct its own investigation, review all relevant information provided by the CRA, report the results to the CRA, and — if the information was found inaccurate or incomplete — modify, delete, or permanently block the reporting and notify all CRAs to which it had furnished the information. The furnisher failed to conduct a reasonable investigation and continued to verify and report the inaccurate Disputed Item.

4.7. The harm. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff suffered actual damages, including [denial of credit / a higher interest rate / a reduced credit limit / denial of housing or employment / lost time and out-of-pocket expense / emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, and humiliation / damage to credit reputation].

5. COUNT I — VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) (CRA — FAILURE TO FOLLOW REASONABLE PROCEDURES FOR ACCURACY)

5.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 4.7.

5.2. The CRA prepared and published one or more consumer reports concerning Plaintiff that contained the inaccurate Disputed Item.

5.3. The CRA violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information in the consumer reports it prepared concerning Plaintiff.

5.4. The CRA's conduct was willful (15 U.S.C. § 1681n) or, in the alternative, negligent (15 U.S.C. § 1681o), entitling Plaintiff to the remedies set forth in Section 9 below.

6. COUNT II — VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1681i (CRA — FAILURE TO REINVESTIGATE)

6.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 4.7.

6.2. After receiving Plaintiff's dispute, the CRA failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of the Disputed Item, failed to review and consider all relevant information submitted by Plaintiff, failed to forward all relevant information to the furnisher, and failed to delete or modify information that could not be verified, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a).

6.3. The CRA further failed to provide Plaintiff with timely written notice of the results of any reinvestigation as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(6).

6.4. The CRA's conduct was willful (15 U.S.C. § 1681n) or, in the alternative, negligent (15 U.S.C. § 1681o).

7. COUNT III — VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) (FURNISHER — FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE AFTER NOTICE)

7.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 4.7.

7.2. Upon receiving notice of Plaintiff's dispute from the CRA pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(2), the furnisher was obligated under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) to (a) conduct a reasonable investigation of the disputed information; (b) review all relevant information provided by the CRA; (c) report the results of the investigation to the CRA; and (d) if the information was incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other CRAs to which it had furnished the information and modify, delete, or permanently block the inaccurate information.

7.3. The furnisher failed to perform one or more of these duties and continued to report the inaccurate Disputed Item, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b).

7.4. The furnisher's conduct was willful (15 U.S.C. § 1681n) or, in the alternative, negligent (15 U.S.C. § 1681o).

8. COUNT IV — VIOLATION OF THE D.C. CONSUMER PROTECTION PROCEDURES ACT, D.C. CODE § 28-3904

8.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 7.4.

8.2. Each Defendant is a "merchant" and Plaintiff is a "consumer" within the meaning of D.C. Code § 28-3901(a)(2)–(3).

8.3. Defendants' conduct — reporting and verifying inaccurate credit information about Plaintiff, and failing to conduct reasonable reinvestigations and investigations after notice of dispute — constitutes one or more "unlawful trade practices" under D.C. Code § 28-3904, including without limitation:

• D.C. Code § 28-3904(e) — misrepresenting a material fact which has a tendency to mislead;
• D.C. Code § 28-3904(f) — failing to state a material fact if such failure tends to mislead;
• D.C. Code § 28-3904(f-1) — using innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact which has a tendency to mislead.

8.4. The District's Consumer Security Freeze provisions, D.C. Code § 28-3861 et seq., confirm the District's policy protecting consumers from improper handling of credit-report information by credit reporting agencies, and a consumer's right to take legal action against a credit reporting agency or anyone who fraudulently causes the release of credit information.

8.5. Pursuant to D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(2), Plaintiff is entitled to: (A) treble damages, or $1,500 per violation, whichever is greater (each separate unlawful act constitutes a separate violation); (B) reasonable attorney's fees; (C) punitive damages; (D) an injunction against the use of the unlawful trade practice; and (E) any other relief the Court determines proper.

9. DAMAGES

9.1. Actual damages, including economic loss (denial of or increased cost of credit), out-of-pocket expense, lost time, and emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, and humiliation, in an amount to be proven at trial.

9.2. FCRA statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per willful violation under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(1)(A).

9.3. FCRA punitive damages for willful noncompliance under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(2).

9.4. CPPA damages — treble damages or $1,500 per violation, whichever is greater, plus punitive damages, under D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(2).

9.5. Reasonable attorney's fees and costs under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n(a)(3) and 1681o(a)(2), and D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(2)(B).

9.6. Equitable relief directing deletion or correction of the Disputed Item and enjoining further inaccurate reporting.

10. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor and against Defendants for:

• A. Actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
• B. Statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per willful violation under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(1)(A);
• C. Punitive damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(2);
• D. Treble damages or $1,500 per violation, whichever is greater, and punitive damages, under D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(2);
• E. Injunctive and declaratory relief directing deletion or correction of the Disputed Item and enjoining further inaccurate reporting;
• F. Reasonable attorney's fees and costs under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o and D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(2)(B);
• G. Pre- and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; and
• H. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

11. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

12. SIGNATURE BLOCK

Date: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME], D.C. Bar No. [####]

Counsel for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, STATE ZIP]

Telephone: [NUMBER]

Email: [EMAIL]

13. VERIFICATION

I, [PLAINTIFF NAME], declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing Complaint, and that the factual allegations contained therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Date: [__/__/____]

[________________________________]

[PLAINTIFF NAME]

14. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this [____] day of [_______________], 20[____], I served the foregoing COMPLAINT upon Defendants by [the Court's CM/ECF system / certified mail, return receipt requested / personal service through a process server] at the following addresses:

[DEFENDANT NAMES AND SERVICE ADDRESSES — registered agent for each Defendant]

[________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME]

15. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PRACTICE NOTES

• Concurrent jurisdiction. FCRA claims may be filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia or D.C. Superior Court. 15 U.S.C. § 1681p. State-law claims may be added by supplemental jurisdiction in federal court (28 U.S.C. § 1367). Defendants frequently remove from Superior Court — consider strategic forum choice up front.
• FCRA limitations. The earlier of 2 years after discovery or 5 years after the violation. 15 U.S.C. § 1681p.
• CPPA is plaintiff-favorable. D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(2) provides treble damages or $1,500 per violation (whichever is greater), plus attorney's fees, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. Courts construe the CPPA liberally; plead each unlawful act discretely so the $1,500-per-violation floor compounds.
• Furnisher liability is § 1681s-2(b) only. No private right of action exists under § 1681s-2(a). Plead and prove the consumer disputed through a CRA and the CRA forwarded notice to the furnisher.
• Security-freeze overlay. D.C.'s Consumer Security Freeze, D.C. Code § 28-3861 et seq., governs freezes and confirms the consumer's right to sue a credit reporting agency or anyone who fraudulently causes release of credit information; cite it as supporting District policy and, in identity-theft cases, alongside the federal § 1681c-2 block.
• CPPA limitations. 3 years (D.C. Code § 12-301).
• FCRA pre-emption. Analyze 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1)(F) and § 1681h(e) before relying on the CPPA count for inaccurate-reporting conduct.
• Evidence to preserve. The disputed report(s), the written dispute and proof of delivery, the CRA's reinvestigation result, the ACDV/e-OSCAR records, and post-dispute reports showing the item remained.

16. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (FCRA) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-41/subchapter-III
• 15 U.S.C. § 1681e (compliance procedures / accuracy) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1681e
• 15 U.S.C. § 1681i (reinvestigation) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1681i
• 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 (furnisher responsibilities) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1681s-2
• 15 U.S.C. § 1681n / § 1681o (civil liability) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1681n
• 15 U.S.C. § 1681p (jurisdiction and limitations) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1681p
• D.C. Code § 28-3901 et seq. (CPPA) — https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/titles/28/chapters/39
• D.C. Code § 28-3904 (unlawful trade practices) — https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/28-3904
• D.C. Code § 28-3905 (complaint procedures / private action) — https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/28-3905
• D.C. Code § 28-3861 et seq. (Consumer Security Freeze) — https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/28-3861
• 12 C.F.R. Part 1022 (Regulation V — Fair Credit Reporting) — https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/1022/
• D.C. OAG Office of Consumer Protection — https://oag.dc.gov/consumer-protection
• Grayson v. AT&T Corp., 15 A.3d 219 (D.C. 2011) (en banc) (CPPA standing)
• Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007) (FCRA willfulness standard)

Disclaimer: This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. An attorney admitted to the D.C. Bar (and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, if filing in federal court) must review and customize this document before filing. Statutes, regulations, and pre-emption doctrine change frequently; verify all authorities before use.