Cursory Investigations And Misleading Reporting Leads To Partial Summary Judgment Win For Consumer

A recent federal court decision granting summary judgment to a plaintiff on a claim that a lender violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the "FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., by failing to conduct a "reasonable" investigation of a credit reporting dispute – an issue normally reserved for a jury – illustrates the difficulty creditors have in managing the legal risks in furnishing information to consumer reporting agencies. It also illustrates the particularly high risks creditors face in handling claims of identity theft, and the risks they run when they fail to take advantage of multiple disputes to address a problem.

On September 21, 2017, the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia resolved cross-motions for summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff David W. Wood ("Wood" or "Plaintiff") in a case against Defendant Credit One Bank ("Credit One" or "Defendant") for violations of the FCRA. See Wood v. Credit One Bank, No. 3:15-cv-594 (E.D. Va. Sept. 21,