Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a joint motion to dismiss filed by three credit reporting agencies in a case involving alleged violations of the FCRA. The litigation, which also names a credit card issuer as a defendant, centered on a consumer’s claim that her credit report showed a growing balance and charge-off — even after late fees and interest charges were credited back to her account by her credit card issuer. She alleged that the agencies failed to conduct a “reasonable reinvestigation” of her disputes, resulting in the continued reporting of an incorrect debt.

In their motion to dismiss, the credit reporting agencies argued that the matter was a legal disagreement over the validity of fees and the application of rewards under the card agreement, rather than a factual inaccuracy subject to the FCRA. They maintained their reporting was accurate and described the plaintiff’s claims as a “collateral attack” on the underlying debt. In response to the motion, the plaintiff contended that the agencies could have identified the error by reviewing her billing statements and performing “simple arithmetic,” framing the dispute as one of objective fact, as opposed to legal interpretation.

The court found that the plaintiff’s allegations focused on objectively verifiable facts and met the threshold to state a claim under the FCRA’s provisions, which require agencies to investigate and correct factual inaccuracies. As a result, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s claims warranted further proceedings and denied the agencies’ request to dismiss the case.