The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court's dismissal of Fair Credit Reporting Act claims against three major financial companies in an unpublished opinion filed Jan. 15, 2025.
In *Ray'Quan Harding v. TransUnion LLC*, the appeals court upheld the Southern District of Florida's decision to dismiss claims with prejudice against Upstart Network Inc. and enter judgment on the pleadings in favor of TransUnion LLC and Experian Information Solutions.
The case stems from allegations that the credit reporting giants TransUnion and Experian inaccurately reported information in Harding's credit reports due to underlying errors with his Upstart account. Upstart, which operates as a loan servicer, had serviced a $5,000 personal unsecured loan for Harding beginning in January 2021.
Harding brought claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the federal law that governs how consumer reporting agencies collect, use, and share consumer credit information. The FCRA requires credit reporting agencies to follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of consumer reports and provides consumers with rights to dispute inaccurate information.
According to court records, Harding generally alleged that TransUnion and Experian were inaccurately reporting information in his credit reports because of errors related to his Upstart loan account. The specific nature of the alleged inaccuracies was not detailed in the available portions of the appeals court opinion.
Before filing the federal lawsuit, Harding had attempted to resolve the dispute through alternative means, filing a complaint with the American Arbitration Association. The appeals court noted this prior arbitration effort in its brief factual summary, though details of that proceeding were not elaborated upon in the available excerpts.
The district court proceedings resulted in different outcomes for the various defendants. The trial court dismissed Harding's claims against Upstart with prejudice, meaning Harding cannot refile those particular claims. For TransUnion and Experian, the district court entered judgment on the pleadings, a procedural ruling that resolves the case without a trial based solely on the pleadings filed by both sides.
Judgment on the pleadings can be granted when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the facts alleged in the complaint and other pleadings. This suggests the district court found that even accepting Harding's factual allegations as true, he failed to state viable FCRA claims against the credit reporting agencies.
The Eleventh Circuit's three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges William H. Pryor Jr., Jill A. Pryor, and Andrew L. Brasher, issued a brief per curiam opinion affirming the lower court's rulings. Per curiam opinions are issued by the court as a whole rather than authored by a single judge and typically indicate the panel found the legal issues relatively straightforward.
The appeals court noted that it had reviewed "the record and the parties' briefs" before reaching its decision to affirm. However, the case was decided on a non-argument calendar, meaning the parties did not present oral arguments to the panel.
The decision adds to a body of case law around FCRA enforcement, an area that has seen significant litigation in recent years as consumers have become more aware of their rights regarding credit reporting accuracy. Consumer advocates have increasingly turned to federal courts to challenge credit reporting practices, though success rates vary significantly depending on the specific circumstances and legal theories advanced.
For TransUnion and Experian, two of the three major credit reporting agencies in the United States, the ruling represents a favorable outcome in defending against consumer challenges. Both companies regularly face FCRA litigation and have developed extensive legal strategies for defending such claims.
The case originated in the Southern District of Florida under docket number 1:23-cv-23775-RNS, indicating it was filed in 2023 before District Judge Rodney Smith. The relatively quick progression from district court filing to appeals court resolution suggests the legal issues may have been resolved on preliminary motions rather than after extensive discovery or trial.
Upstart Network, the lending technology platform that was also named as a defendant, provides loans through bank partnerships and uses artificial intelligence and machine learning to assess creditworthiness. The company's role as a loan servicer in this case placed it within the scope of FCRA regulation, though the specific allegations against Upstart were not detailed in the available court documents.
The Eleventh Circuit's unpublished status for this opinion means it will have limited precedential value for future cases, though it may still be cited for persuasive authority. The "not for publication" designation typically indicates the court viewed the legal principles as well-established rather than breaking new ground in FCRA jurisprudence.
This decision reflects ongoing challenges consumers face when seeking to hold credit reporting agencies accountable under federal law, particularly in cases involving complex relationships between lenders, loan servicers, and credit bureaus where responsibility for reporting errors may be disputed among multiple parties.