Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to a debt buyer, holding that a consumer failed to show that disputed credit report information was inaccurate or incomplete within the meaning of the FCRA. The consumer alleged that the debt buyer violated 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2(b)(1)(A) by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation after receiving notice of a dispute regarding the reported account opening date and date of first delinquency.

Regarding the account opening date, the consumer alleged that the debt buyer reported the date that the debt buyer acquired the debt rather than the date the original creditor opened the account. The court found that, when read in context with the original creditor’s name, the loan type listed as a “debt buyer’s account,” and the date of first delinquency, “no reasonable jury” could interpret the reported opening date as materially misleading. As to the date of first delinquency, the consumer contended the account became delinquent the day after the payment due date, while the debt buyer reported a date five days later, which the debt buyer stated corresponded to the end of the billing cycle.

The court concluded that, even accepting the consumer’s position, a five-day discrepancy that placed the delinquency later than the consumer alleged actually benefited the consumer and could not be expected to adversely affect credit decisions. Applying 7th Circuit precedent, the court stated that reported information must be “patently incorrect” or “materially misleading” to be actionable under the FCRA and that mere imprecision is insufficient to sustain such an action. Because the consumer failed to meet the threshold burden for showing inaccuracy, the court did not reach the reasonableness of the debt buyer’s investigation procedures or the consumer’s damages claims.