Cases & Deals

Experian prevails in series of lawsuits alleging that its reporting of "charged off" accounts violates FCRA

Clients Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Jones Day successfully represented Experian Information Solutions, Inc. in multiple lawsuits filed in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York based on Experian's reporting of "charged off" account balances. In each case, the plaintiffs (represented by the same counsel) claimed that it was inaccurate - and therefore a violation of the FCRA - for Experian to report a "past due" balance on an account that had been "charged off." Jones Day, on behalf of Experian and in coordination with the numerous codefendants named in each action, filed dispositive motions, arguing that a “charge off” is simply an accounting mechanism reflecting that a creditor is unlikely to recoup a debt, but which does not extinguish that obligation or otherwise alter the consumer's responsibility to repay that debt. Both the Eastern District (in Artemov v. TransUnion LLC, et al.) and Southern District of New York (in Ostreicher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al.) agreed, holding that Experian's reporting was accurate and therefore each plaintiff failed to state a claim and lacked Article III standing. Since those victories, other courts around the country have adopted the reasoning of those decisions and rejected similar FCRA claims, including in another case litigated on Experian's behalf by Jones Day (Butnick v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.).

Jones Day also successfully represented Experian in an Artemov "follow on" lawsuit, Cohen v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., also predicated on Experian's reporting of a “charged off” account balance, but where plaintiff advanced a new theory to avoid the rulings of the aforementioned cases. The Eastern District of New York rejected that modified claim as well, agreeing with Experian that plaintiff failed to establish both that he suffered an injury-in-fact and that his claim was ripe for adjudication. The court therefore held that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing.

Artemov v. TransUnion LLC, et al., No. 20-cv-1892 (EDNY); Ostreicher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al., No. 20-cv-1215 (SDNY); Butnick v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. 20-cv-1631 (EDNY); Cohen v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. 20-cv-3678 (EDNY)