​

Recent opinions interpreting the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) from the past year have focused on the scope of consumer reporting agencies’ and furnishers’ investigative duties, the distinction between factual and legal inaccuracies, and procedural requirements for asserting FCRA claims. Courts have generally reaffirmed that agencies are not required to resolve legal disputes over debt validity, but must ensure factual accuracy and conduct reasonable investigations, while some circuits and regulators continue to debate the boundaries of these obligations.

Summary

Over the past year, federal courts and regulatory bodies have issued several significant opinions and rulings interpreting the FCRA. The main themes include the limits of consumer reporting agencies’ and furnishers’ duties to investigate disputed information, the distinction between factual and legal inaccuracies, the procedural requirements for FCRA claims, and the evolving standards for what constitutes a “reasonable” investigation or procedure under the Act.

Key appellate and district court decisions have clarified that consumer reporting agencies are not required to adjudicate legal disputes about the validity of debts, but must ensure the factual accuracy of reported information and follow reasonable procedures. Meanwhile, some courts and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) have pushed for a broader interpretation, suggesting that furnishers may be required to investigate both legal and factual disputes if the underlying information is objectively verifiable. The following analysis summarizes the most relevant recent opinions, their legal issues, and outcomes.

Background and Relevant Law

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., is designed to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, promote efficiency in the banking system, and protect consumer privacy. The Act imposes duties on both consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) and furnishers of information to CRAs, including requirements to maintain reasonable procedures for maximum possible accuracy (§ 1681e(b)), to conduct reasonable investigations of disputed information (§ 1681i), and for furnishers, to investigate disputes forwarded by CRAs (§ 1681s-2(b)).

Recent regulatory guidance, such as the CFPB’s 2022 Advisory Opinion, has emphasized that CRAs must remove logical inconsistencies from credit reports to comply with the “maximum possible accuracy” standard under Section 607(b) of the FCRA (No junk data: CFPB Advisory Opinion fleshes out “maximum possible accuracy” for purposes of deciding FCRA violations (2022)).

Recent Case Law

1. Reyes v. Equifax Info. Servs., L.L.C., 140 F.4th 279 (5th Cir. 2025)

• Legal Issue: Whether a consumer reporting agency is required under the FCRA to investigate the legal validity of a disputed debt, or only its factual accuracy.

• Outcome: The Fifth Circuit held that CRAs are not required to investigate the legal validity of debts; their duty is limited to investigating factual inaccuracies. The court aligned with other circuits, emphasizing that CRAs are not equipped to resolve legal disputes and that their liability under the FCRA turns on the reasonableness of their investigations into factual matters (Reyes v. Equifax Info. Servs., L.L.C., 140 F.4th 279 (5th Cir. 2025)).

2. Pritchett v. Westlake Portfolio Mgmt., 2:24-cv-747-RDP (N.D. Ala. Dec 17, 2024)

• Legal Issue: Whether the plaintiff’s FCRA claims for negligent and willful noncompliance with § 1681s-2(b) were timely and whether the defendant conducted a reasonable investigation into disputed information.

• Outcome: The court dismissed some claims as voluntarily withdrawn and found that the remaining claims were subject to the FCRA’s two-year statute of limitations, which begins when the plaintiff discovers the violation. The court reiterated that the actionable violation is the failure to conduct a reasonable investigation, not the mere reporting of inaccurate information (Pritchett v. Westlake Portfolio Mgmt., 2:24-cv-747-RDP (N.D. Ala. Dec 17, 2024)).

3. Wadlington v. Equifax (E.D. Pa. June 18, 2024)

• Legal Issue: Whether Equifax failed to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy and security of consumer information, as required by the FCRA.

• Outcome: The court recognized the FCRA’s purpose to protect consumers from inaccurate information and to require CRAs to use accurate, relevant, and current information. The case underscores the ongoing duty of CRAs to maintain reasonable procedures for accuracy (Wadlington v. Equifax (E.D. Pa. June 18, 2024)).

4. James v. Hicks, Civil Action 24-1099 (E.D. Pa. May 01, 2024)

• Legal Issue: Whether the FCRA provides an “opt out” right for consumers and what constitutes a valid FCRA claim against a CRA.

• Outcome: The court clarified that the FCRA does not allow consumers to “opt out” of having information reported, and that a valid FCRA claim requires an allegation of inaccuracy. The plaintiff’s claim failed because he did not allege any inaccuracy in the reported information (James v. Hicks, Civil Action 24-1099 (E.D. Pa. May 01, 2024)).

5. Oyedeji v. Checkr, Inc. (D.N.J. Apr. 12, 2024)

• Legal Issue: What elements must a plaintiff allege to state a claim under FCRA § 1681e(b) for failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.

• Outcome: The court dismissed the claim, holding that a plaintiff must allege (1) inaccurate information in the report, (2) that the inaccuracy was due to the defendant’s failure to follow reasonable procedures, (3) injury, and (4) causation. The plaintiff failed to plausibly allege inaccuracy or a causal link (Oyedeji v. Checkr, Inc. (D.N.J. Apr. 12, 2024)).

6. Koerner v. Experian Info. Sols., 20-CV-0522 (N.D. Ill. Mar 27, 2024)

• Legal Issue: Whether a CRA is required to determine the legal validity of a debt or only its factual accuracy under the FCRA.

• Outcome: The court, following Seventh Circuit precedent, held that CRAs are not required to resolve legal disputes about debt validity; their duty is to ensure factual accuracy. The claim was dismissed because the dispute was over legal liability, not factual inaccuracy (Koerner v. Experian Info. Sols., 20-CV-0522 (N.D. Ill. Mar 27, 2024)).

7. Davis v. Direct Screening (E.D. Pa. Jan. 30, 2024)

• Legal Issue: What constitutes negligent noncompliance with FCRA § 1681e(b) and the elements required to establish such a claim.

• Outcome: The court reiterated the four elements for negligent noncompliance: inclusion of inaccurate information, failure to follow reasonable procedures, injury, and causation. The case provides a framework for evaluating FCRA claims against CRAs (Davis v. Direct Screening (E.D. Pa. Jan. 30, 2024)).

8. Recent Fourth Circuit Ruling (2025)

• Legal Issue: Whether furnishers must investigate disputes involving legal issues under the FCRA.

• Outcome: The Fourth Circuit held that furnishers must investigate disputes based on information that is objectively and readily verifiable, regardless of whether the dispute involves legal or factual issues. This decision diverges from other circuits that limit the duty to factual disputes (Fourth Circuit Ruling Provides New Guidance as to Furnishers’ Duty to Investigate Legal Disputes Under the FCRA (2025)).

9. CFPB v. Nationwide Consumer Reporting Agency (2025)

• Legal Issue: Whether a nationwide CRA violated the FCRA by conducting inadequate investigations of consumer disputes and reinserting inaccurate information.

• Outcome: The CFPB filed suit alleging the agency’s investigation and notification processes were inadequate and that it unlawfully reinserted inaccurate information, harming consumers’ access to credit, employment, and housing. The case reflects increased regulatory scrutiny of FCRA compliance (CFPB Alleges Credit Reporting Agency Conducted Sham Investigations Of Errors (2025)).

Analysis

A. Distinction Between Factual and Legal Inaccuracies

A central issue in recent FCRA litigation is whether CRAs and furnishers must investigate legal disputes (such as the validity of a debt) or only factual inaccuracies (such as the amount owed or payment status). The Fifth Circuit in Reyes v. Equifax Info. Servs., L.L.C., 140 F.4th 279 (5th Cir. 2025) and the Northern District of Illinois in Koerner v. Experian Info. Sols., 20-CV-0522 (N.D. Ill. Mar 27, 2024) both held that CRAs are not required to resolve legal disputes, but only to ensure factual accuracy. This approach is consistent with the reasoning in other circuits and with the district court’s decision in Sessa v. Trans Union, LLC, which drew a distinction between factual and legal inaccuracies and held that CRAs are not liable for failing to resolve legal disputes (AFSA and Several Other Trade Associations Urge Second Circuit to Reject CFPB’s Expanded Interpretation of FCRA Reasonable Procedures for Maximum Accuracy Requirement (2022)).

However, the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision diverges from this trend, holding that furnishers must investigate disputes based on objectively verifiable information, even if the dispute involves legal issues (Fourth Circuit Ruling Provides New Guidance as to Furnishers’ Duty to Investigate Legal Disputes Under the FCRA (2025)). This creates a potential circuit split and reflects ongoing debate about the scope of investigative duties under the FCRA.

B. Elements of an FCRA Claim and Procedural Requirements

Several recent district court decisions have clarified the elements required to state a claim under the FCRA. Courts have consistently held that a plaintiff must allege (1) inaccurate information in a consumer report, (2) that the inaccuracy resulted from the defendant’s failure to follow reasonable procedures, (3) injury, and (4) causation (Oyedeji v. Checkr, Inc. (D.N.J. Apr. 12, 2024); Davis v. Direct Screening (E.D. Pa. Jan. 30, 2024)). Failure to allege inaccuracy or a causal link between the inaccuracy and injury is fatal to an FCRA claim (James v. Hicks, Civil Action 24-1099 (E.D. Pa. May 01, 2024)).

The timeliness of FCRA claims is also a recurring issue. In Pritchett v. Westlake Portfolio Mgmt., 2:24-cv-747-RDP (N.D. Ala. Dec 17, 2024), the court emphasized that the two-year statute of limitations begins when the plaintiff discovers the violation, and that the actionable violation is the failure to conduct a reasonable investigation, not the mere reporting of inaccurate information.

C. Reasonableness of Investigations and Procedures

The FCRA requires both CRAs and furnishers to conduct reasonable investigations of disputed information. Courts have held that a cursory or restricted review does not satisfy this requirement (Miller v. Westlake Servs. LLC, 637 F.Supp.3d 836 (C.D. Cal. 2022)). The CFPB’s 2022 Advisory Opinion further clarifies that CRAs must remove logical inconsistencies from credit reports to ensure maximum possible accuracy (No junk data: CFPB Advisory Opinion fleshes out “maximum possible accuracy” for purposes of deciding FCRA violations (2022)).

D. Regulatory and Appellate Developments

The CFPB has taken an active role in shaping FCRA interpretation, filing amicus briefs arguing that the Act does not distinguish between legal and factual inaccuracies and that both CRAs and furnishers should be required to investigate all disputes (CFPB and FTC Urge Second Circuit to adopt expansive interpretation of FCRA Reasonable Procedures for Maximum Accuracy Requirement (2022); CFPB Argues the FCRA Requires Furnishers to Investigate Legal Issues Raised in Consumer Disputes (2022)). While some courts have adopted this broader view, most recent appellate decisions have maintained the distinction, limiting the duty to factual inaccuracies.

Exceptions and Caveats

The Fourth Circuit’s recent decision requiring furnishers to investigate objectively verifiable disputes, even if they involve legal issues, stands in contrast to the prevailing approach in other circuits. This divergence may lead to further appellate review or Supreme Court intervention to resolve the split. Additionally, the CFPB’s regulatory and enforcement actions may influence future judicial interpretations, especially as courts grapple with the boundaries of “reasonable” procedures and investigations.

Conclusion

Recent opinions interpreting the FCRA have largely reaffirmed that consumer reporting agencies are not required to resolve legal disputes over the validity of debts, but must ensure factual accuracy and conduct reasonable investigations. The Fourth Circuit’s recent ruling and the CFPB’s advocacy for a broader interpretation signal ongoing debate and potential shifts in the law. Courts continue to emphasize the need for plaintiffs to allege specific inaccuracies and to meet procedural requirements, while regulatory scrutiny of CRAs’ and furnishers’ investigative practices remains high. The evolving landscape suggests that the distinction between factual and legal inaccuracies, and the scope of investigative duties under the FCRA, will remain central issues in future litigation and regulatory action.