In early 2022, Gia Sessa filed an appeal from the U.S. District Court from the Southern District of New York to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal followed an opinion by the district court in favor of TransUnion. In this case,
The Parties dispute the accuracy of the report rendered. In broad strokes, Plaintiff argues that TransUnion furnished an inaccurate credit report because Plaintiff did not owe the residual value of the car as a debt. Conversely, TransUnion argues that it reported information accurately with respect to what HVFCU, the furnisher, provided and that it is not required to—and, indeed, cannot—challenge the legal validity of the debt instrument as furnished by HVFCU.
TransUnion is correct. Even when read in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, as the Court must, because TransUnion reported the exact information it received from a data furnisher without omitting salient details or presenting the information in a misleading fashion, Plaintiff cannot establish as a matter of law that TransUnion reported inaccurate information. Accordingly, there exists no genuine issue of fact as to whether TransUnion violated the FCRA, and the Court must grant TransUnion’s Motion.
. . .
Plaintiff does not raise any other allegations of inaccuracy. Plaintiff does not suggest that pertinent or material information was missing or omitted in TransUnion’s credit reporting regarding Plaintiff, nor does Plaintiff suggest that furnishers, the credit rating agency, and third parties were misaligned in their understanding of the obligation due to strange verbiage or errant annotation. Thus, TransUnion’s report cannot be said to be misleading or patently inaccurate.
Because ‘[P]laintiff[’]s[] complaint pleaded only speculative legal inaccuracies,’ [citing Denan v. TransUnion, where CDIA filed an amicus], Defendant’s report is considered accurate pursuant to the FCRA, and as a result, Plaintiff cannot sustain a claim thereunder. For this reason, the TransUnion’s Motion for summary judgment must be granted.
Questions presented:
The case raises two key questions. First, did the district court correctly hold—as every federal appellate court to consider the issue has held—that a CRA is not required to act as a tribunal and resolve legal issues relating to a consumer’s liability for a debt? Second, and alternatively, was Trans Union entitled to rely on the information furnished by Plaintiff’s creditor because the CRA had no notice (from Plaintiff, the creditor, or anyone) that the information was inaccurate or that the creditor was not a reliable data furnisher?
In July 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued a decision vacating and remanding the case back to the U.S. District Court (July 2023).
Relevant documents:
- Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant, Gia Sessa (April 29, 2022).
- Amicus of the CFPB and FTC (May 5, 2022).
- Amicus of eight consumer-advocacy organizations: CAMBA Legal Services, Connecticut Fair Housing Center, Consumer Action, Housing Clinic of Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School, Mobilization for Justice National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Consumer Law Center, New Economy Project, Public Justice, and U.S. PIRG (May 5, 2022).
- Brief of Defendant-Appellee, TransUnion
- Amicus of the Consumer Data Industry Association (August 5, 2022).
- Amicus of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Bankers Association (ABA), National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions (NAFCU), The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), American Financial Services Association (AFSA), and Credit Union National Association (CUNA) (August 5, 2022).
- U.S. Court of Appeals decision vacating and remanding the case back to the U.S. District Court (July 2023).
Further reading:
- BallardSpahr blog (May 2022).
- CDIA Resource Center, Denan v. TransUnion, 959 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 2020).
Sessa v. TransUnion, U.S.C.A. (2nd Cir.), No. 22-82. The plaintiff is represented by The Schlanger Law Group and Gupta Wessler. TransUnion is represented by Reed Smith.