In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted the plaintiff married couple’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that a debt collector violated the FCRA by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation into a credit reporting dispute. The court further denied the debt collector’s motion for summary judgment and denied as moot its motion to exclude expert testimony. The court concluded that the debt collector violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) by treating a disputed debt as accurate without taking steps to reconcile conflicting information it received through automated credit dispute verifications.

The case arose when the couple disputed a collection account related to purportedly unpaid rent that appeared on their credit report; the plaintiffs asserted they paid this debt via cashier’s check in 2022. The opinion noted that the plaintiffs received confirmation from a property management representative of receipt of the cashier’s check at the time payment was made. The balance was later characterized as unpaid, and the account was eventually reported to consumer reporting agencies by the debt collector. After the plaintiffs disputed the debt with the consumer reporting agencies, the agencies transmitted automated credit dispute verifications to the debt collector that included the representative’s email confirming receipt of the cashier’s check, documentation the debt collector had not previously received. Despite this new evidence, the opinion stated the debt collector did not contact the original creditor to address the conflict and instead verified the account as accurate based solely on its internal notes reflecting prior communications.

The court found the debt collector’s investigation to be unreasonable under the FCRA, as it failed to address new evidence included in the dispute submissions. The court concluded that a “reasonably prudent” investigation under the FCRA required more than relying on prior internal notes when the dispute materials included new documentary evidence that conflicted with those records.