On August 13, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, allowing the plaintiff’s claim under the FCRA against a bank to proceed while dismissing claims under the FDCPA, California Identity Theft Act (CITA), and California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCCRAA). The plaintiff was an individual who moved to the U.S. from Ukraine in April 2023 and alleged that his personal information was stolen and used to open credit card accounts resulting in a significant debt reported to major credit agencies and damaging his credit score.

The plaintiff disputed the debt, asserting he did not open the account and provided supporting documents to the bank defendant, which reported his account to the credit reporting agencies. The court found the plaintiff presented enough evidence to support that the bank furnished inaccurate information and failed to conduct a reasonable investigation in violation of the FCRA. The court found there was a fact dispute as to whether the bank’s agents willfully failed to review the supporting evidence the plaintiff provided when filing his dispute. The court also concluded that whether the plaintiff was harmed was an issue of fact for the jury to decide. The court granted summary of the FDCPA claim because the defendant failed to meet the statutory definition of a “debt collector.” It also dismissed the remaining state law claims finding that the FCRA preempted the CCCRAA and that defendant did not qualify as a “claimant” under CITA because it sold plaintiff’s disputed debt to a third-party before the lawsuit was filed.