No. 16-7008

In the United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit

______________________________

ANTHONY RIVERA

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., 

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________

On Appeal from the 

United States District Court for the District of Columbia 

Case No. 1:15-cv-1065

_____________________________________

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU AND

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT AND REVERSAL

____________________________________

David C. Shonka

Acting General Counsel

Joel Marcus

Director of Litigation

Theodore (Jack) Metzler

Attorney

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, D.C. 20580

(202) 326-3502 (telephone)

(202) 326-2477 (facsimile)

tmetzler@ftc.gov

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

Federal Trade Commission

Mary McLeod

General Counsel

John R. Coleman

Assistant General Counsel

Nandan M. Joshi

Senior Litigation Counsel

Melanie Hirsch

Counsel

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

1700 G Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20552

(202) 435-7944 (telephone)

(202) 435-7024 (facsimile)

melanie.hirsch@cfpb.gov

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 1 of 47
i

CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED 

CASES

Pursuant to Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), the undersigned counsel certifies as 

follows:

A. Parties and Amici

The appellant in this Court, who was plaintiff in the district court, is 

Anthony Rivera.

The appellee in this Court, who was defendant in the district court, is

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

There were no amici in the district court.

B. Rulings Under Review

The rulings under review are the Memorandum Opinion, not yet 

published (Mem. Op. I), and accompanying Order granting JPMorgan 

Chase Bank, N.A.’s motion to dismiss, issued on October 22, 2015, by Judge 

Royce C. Lamberth; and the Memorandum Opinion, 312 F.R.D. 216 (D.D.C. 

2015) (Mem. Op. II), and accompanying Order denying Anthony Rivera’s

motion to alter or amend the judgment, issued on December 10, 2015, by 

Judge Royce C. Lamberth.

C. Related Cases

This matter has not been previously before this Court or any other 

court. There are no related cases before this Court or any other court.

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 2 of 47
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES ................... i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii

GLOSSARY........................................................................................................... vii

INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ............................................................................1

STATEMENT.......................................................................................................... 3

A. Statutory Background............................................................................... 3

B. Facts and Procedural History................................................................... 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................ 11

ARGUMENT..........................................................................................................13

A. Rivera’s Claims Under Section 1681s-2(b) Are Timely. ..........................13

B. Decisions Concerning Furnisher Liability Under Section 1681s2(b) for Repeated Disputes About the Same Information Are Not 

Relevant Here......................................................................................... 20

CONCLUSION...................................................................................................... 23

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a)............................................

ADDENDUM............................................................................................................

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE....................................................................................

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 3 of 47
iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES PAGE

Banga v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.,

2013 WL 71772 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2013).................................................... 19

Bittick v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc.,

419 F. Supp. 2d 917 (N.D. Tex. 2006) ................................................. 21, 22

Blackwell v. Capital One Bank,

2008 WL 793476 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 25, 2008)........................................ 21, 22

Boggio v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank,

696 F.3d 611 (6th Cir. 2012)...................................................................... 15

*Broccuto v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc.,

2008 WL 1969222 (E.D. Va. May 6, 2008) ................................... 17, 21, 23

Chiang v. Verizon New England Inc., 

595 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2010).................................................................5, 6, 15

CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 

134 S. Ct. 2175 (2014)................................................................................ 18

DePippo v. Chertoff, 

453 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2006)............................................................. 14

Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 

584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................... 15

Green v. Brennan, 

2016 WL 2945236. --- U.S. ---- (May 23, 2016).............................17, 18, 20

Johnson v. MBNA Am. Bank,

357 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2004) ...............................................................15, 16

* Authorities upon which we chiefly rely are marked with asterisks.

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 4 of 47
iv

Jones v. Rogers Mem’l Hosp.,

442 F.2d 773 (D.C. Cir. 1971) .................................................................... 19

Maiteki v. Marten Transp. Ltd., 

4 F. Supp. 3d 1249 (D. Colo. 2013)............................................................23

Marcinski v. RBS Citizens Bank, N.A.,

36 F. Supp. 3d 286 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ..........................................................23

Merck & Co., Inc. v. Reynolds, 

559 U.S. 633 (2010) .................................................................................. 19

*Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 

282 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2002)................................................................. 3, 7

Thomasian v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,

2014 WL 1244892 (D. Or. Mar. 25, 2014).................................................22

TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 

534 U.S. 19 (2001).......................................................................................8

*Vasquez v. Bank of Am., N.A.,

2015 WL 7075628 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2015).................................. 17, 21, 23

Westra v. Credit Control of Pinellas,

409 F.3d 825 (7th Cir. 2005) .................................................................... 15

STATUTES

15 U.S.C. § 1681 ...........................................................................................22

15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)......................................................................................... 1

15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(1) ....................................................................................4

15 U.S.C. § 1681(b)......................................................................................... 1

15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d).......................................................................................3

15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a).......................................................................................3

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 5 of 47
v

15 U.S.C. § 1681i ........................................................................................ 4, 5

15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1) ................................................................................... 7

15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(2)................................................................................... 7

15 U.S.C. § 1681n ................................................................................... 2, 5, 7

15 U.S.C. § 1681o ................................................................................... 2, 5, 7

15 U.S.C. § 1681p .................................................... 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20

15 U.S.C. § 1681p(1)......................................................8, 10, 11, 13, 17, 19, 20

15 U.S.C. § 1681p(2) ...............................................................................14, 18

15 U.S.C. § 1681s(b)(1)(H) ............................................................................. 1

15 U.S.C. § 1681s(e)(1) ................................................................................... 1

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)....................................................................................6

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b).........................2, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(c) ................................................................................ 2, 6

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(A)-(B)....................................................................6

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(C) ..........................................................................6

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(D)..........................................................................6

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(E) ..........................................................................6

REGULATIONS

12 C.F.R. § 1022.41(c)....................................................................................4

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 6 of 47
vi

OTHER AUTHORITIES

149 Cong. Rec. E2512-02 (daily ed. Nov. 21, 2003) (statement of Rep. 

Oxley) ............................................................................................................ 7

CFPB Bulletin 2013-09 (2013), available at 

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201309_cfpb_bulletin_

furnishers.pdf ............................................................................................. 1

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Key Dimensions and Processes in 

the U.S. Credit Reporting System (2012), available at

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201212_cfpb_credit-reportingwhitepaper.pdf............................................................................................3

Federal Trade Commission, Report to Congress Under Section 319 of the 

Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (2012), available at 

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/section-319-

fair-and-accurate-credit-transactions-act-2003-fifth-interim-federaltrade-commission/130211factareport.pdf ............................................8, 23

National Consumer Law Center, Automated Injustice (2009), available at 

https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/pr-reports/reportautomated_injustice.pdf ..................................................................8, 9, 23

Pub. L. No. 91-508, § 611, 84 Stat. 1128 (1970)......................................... 4, 5

Pub. L. No. 104-208, §§ 2412(a), (d), 2413(a)(2), 110 Stat. 3001, 3009-446 

(1996).......................................................................................................... 7

Pub. L. No. 108-159, 117 Stat. 1952 (2003) ................................................... 7

S. Rep. No. 103-209 (1993) ........................................................................... 5

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 7 of 47
vii

GLOSSARY

Bureau or CFPB Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Chase JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Commission or FTC Federal Trade Commission

CRA Consumer reporting agency

FCRA Fair Credit Reporting Act

FTC Report Federal Trade Commission, Report to 

Congress Under Section 319 of the Fair and 

Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 

(2012), available at https://www.ftc.gov/

sites/default/files/documents/reports/section

-319-fair-and-accurate-credit-transactionsact-2003-fifth-interim-federal-tradecommission/130211factareport.pdf

Mem. Op. I Memorandum Opinion granting motion to 

dismiss, issued on October 22, 2015, by Judge 

Royce C. Lamberth 

Mem. Op. II Memorandum Opinion denying motion to 

alter or amend the judgment, issued on 

December 10, 2015, by Judge Royce C. 

Lamberth

NCLC Report National Consumer Law Center, Automated 

Injustice (2009), available at 

https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/prreports/report-automated_injustice.pdf 

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 8 of 47
1

INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE

This case concerns the interpretation of a provision of the Fair Credit 

Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. The Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), an agency of the United States, has 

general authority to enforce the FCRA, id. § 1681s(b)(1)(H), and to 

“prescribe regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to administer 

and carry out the purposes and objectives” of the FCRA. Id. § 1681s(e)(1). 

Those purposes and objectives include promoting the accuracy of consumer 

reports for the benefit of the financial industry and for the protection of 

consumers. See id. § 1681(a)-(b); see also CFPB Bulletin 2013-09 (2013), 

available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201309_cfpb_bulletin_

furnishers.pdf (“The CFPB expects [consumer reporting agencies] and 

furnishers to comply fully with these FCRA requirements, thereby 

promoting the accuracy and completeness of information in the consumer 

reporting system.”). The Bureau therefore has a substantial interest in the 

Court’s decision in this case.

The Bureau is joined in this brief by the Federal Trade Commission 

(FTC or Commission). The Commission is the federal agency with primary 

responsibility for protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive trade 

practices, including enforcement of the FCRA. 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a). The 

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 9 of 47
2

Commission has long studied the consumer issues that arise in credit 

reporting and has issued numerous reports on the FCRA. The Commission 

thus has an interest in the Court’s resolution of the issues presented in this 

case.

One provision of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), requires a

furnisher – an entity that provides information about consumers, including 

debts consumers owe, to consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) – to conduct 

an investigation after a CRA notifies it that a consumer has disputed the 

completeness or accuracy of information provided by the furnisher. In an 

important supplement to the Bureau’s and the Commission’s enforcement 

authorities, the FCRA provides a private right of action for consumers to 

recover damages for willful or negligent violations of this provision. See id. 

§§ 1681n, 1681o; cf. id. § 1681s-2(c). This case implicates a furnisher’s duty 

to investigate a dispute and the time within which a consumer may seek 

redress under the FCRA for violations of that duty. 

Amici therefore respectfully submit this brief to assist the Court in its 

resolution of this appeal. 

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 10 of 47
3

STATEMENT

A. Statutory Background

1. Information contained in consumer reports can be critical to a host 

of decisions vital to Americans’ daily lives. Consumer reports are used to 

evaluate consumers’ eligibility for loans, rental housing, insurance, and 

checking accounts, as well as to determine the interest rates and insurance 

premiums they are assessed. Prospective employers commonly use 

consumer reports in their hiring decisions. See generally Consumer Fin. 

Prot. Bureau, Key Dimensions and Processes in the U.S. Credit Reporting 

System 5 (2012), available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/

201212_cfpb_credit-reporting-whitepaper.pdf.1 Given the importance of 

this information, a “primary purpose for the FCRA [is] to protect 

consumers against inaccurate and incomplete credit reporting.” Nelson v. 

Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 282 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Much of the information about consumers in consumer reports comes from 

“furnishers” – entities such as credit card issuers, depository institutions, 

mortgage lenders, student loan servicers, and collection agencies – who 

1 The FCRA generally uses the term “consumer report,” see, e.g., 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1681a(d) (defining “consumer report”), rather than the more common 

term “credit report.” Additionally, when a consumer requests his own 

report, the FCRA refers to that report as a “disclosure” of information in the 

consumer’s “file.” See id. § 1681g(a). 

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 11 of 47
4

report information about the consumer to CRAs.2 Therefore, whether a 

consumer gets a needed loan, apartment, or job can depend on the accuracy 

of the information that CRAs obtain from furnishers. 

In addition to the harmful consequences of inaccurate and 

incomplete consumer reports for consumers, Congress also recognized that 

inaccurate or incomplete consumer reports have broader economic effects. 

Thus, when Congress enacted the FCRA in 1970, see Pub. L. No. 91-508, tit. 

VI, 84 Stat. 1128, it found that “[t]he banking system is dependent upon fair 

and accurate credit reporting,” “[i]naccurate credit reports directly impair 

the efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods 

undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued

functioning of the banking system.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(1). 

2. Since its enactment, the FCRA has sought to maintain the integrity 

of information contained in consumer reports by allowing consumers to 

dispute the “completeness or accuracy” of information contained in their 

files. See Pub. L. No. 91-508, § 611, 84 Stat. 1128 (1970) (codified as 

amended at 15 U.S.C. § 1681i). Since then, Congress has repeatedly 

2 While the FCRA does not define “furnisher,” its implementing regulation 

defines the term, for purposes of its subpart relating to furnishers, as “an 

entity that furnishes information relating to consumers to one or more 

consumer reporting agencies for inclusion in a consumer report.” 12 C.F.R. 

§ 1022.41(c). There is no dispute in this case that Chase is a furnisher and 

that it has furnished information about Rivera.

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 12 of 47
5

enhanced consumers’ dispute rights. Initially, the duty to investigate 

disputes was imposed solely on CRAs, with no corresponding duty for 

furnishers. See id. After receiving a dispute, the CRA is required to 

“reinvestigate and record the current status of that information unless it 

has reasonable grounds to believe that the dispute by the consumer is 

frivolous or irrelevant.” Id. (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. § 1681i). A

CRA that negligently or willfully fails to comply with this requirement is 

subject to consumer lawsuits for damages. Id. §§ 616, 617, 84 Stat. 1132, 

1134 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 1681o). 

Furnishers had no duties under the FCRA until 1996, even though it 

is furnishers, “not consumer reporting agencies, that have direct access to 

the facts of a given credit transaction” and are “best situated to determine 

whether the information [they] reported was inaccurate or incomplete and 

to ensure its correction.” S. Rep. No. 103-209, at 6 (1993). Congress 

believed that this prior “gap in the FCRA’s coverage weaken[ed] the 

accuracy of the consumer reporting system” because “[i]f the furnisher of 

the information acts irresponsibly in verifying the information, . . . 

inaccurate information may remain on the report and the consumer is left 

with little or no recourse.” Id.; see also Chiang v. Verizon New England 

Inc., 595 F.3d 26, 35 (1st Cir. 2010) (Congress intended to close a gap 

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 13 of 47
6

“whereby even dutiful investigations of consumer disputes by CRAs could 

be frustrated by furnishers’ irresponsible verification of inaccurate 

information, without legal consequence to the furnishers”). 

To address this gap, Congress amended the FCRA in 1996 to impose 

several duties on furnishers.3 With respect to consumer disputes filed with 

CRAs, the 1996 amendments require a CRA to forward a consumer dispute 

to the furnisher of the disputed information. The furnisher, in turn, has five 

statutory obligations. As codified today, the two obligations pertinent here

are that the furnisher must “conduct an investigation with respect to the 

disputed information” and must “review all relevant information” provided 

by the CRA. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(A)-(B).4 Thus, a furnisher violates its 

duty to investigate if (1) a consumer discovers an error in his consumer 

report; (2) the consumer then notifies a CRA that he disputes the accuracy 

3 Under the 1996 amendments, furnishers are generally prohibited from 

reporting to CRAs information they know or have reasonable cause to 

believe is inaccurate, as well information that consumers have identified to 

furnishers as inaccurate. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a). Consumers do not, 

however, have a private right of action to enforce this provision. Id. § 1681s2(c).

4 The other requirements are (3) that the furnisher must report the results 

of its investigation back to the CRA that forwarded the dispute, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1681s-2(b)(1)(C); (4) if the furnisher determines that the information is 

incomplete or inaccurate, it must report the results to all the nationwide 

CRAs to which it furnished the information, id. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(D); and (5)

if the furnisher determines that the information is inaccurate, incomplete, 

or cannot be verified, it must modify, delete, or permanently block 

reporting of that information. Id. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(E).

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 14 of 47
7

and completeness of information in the report, see id. § 1681i(a)(1); (3) the 

CRA provides notice of the dispute and all relevant information concerning 

the dispute to the furnisher, see id. § 1681i(a)(2); and (4) the furnisher, 

upon receipt of that notice, fails to conduct an investigation and review all 

the relevant information provided. Id. § 1681s-2(b). 

The 1996 amendments also expanded the FCRA’s civil liability 

provisions to allow for some consumer lawsuits against furnishers. 

Specifically, civil liability for negligent and willful violations of the FCRA is

no longer limited to “[a]ny consumer reporting agency or user of 

information,” but now extends to “[a]ny person” who negligently or 

willfully fails to comply with certain statutory requirements. Pub. L. No. 

104-208, §§ 2412(a), (d), 2413(a)(2), 110 Stat. 3001, 3009-446 (1996) 

(codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 1681o); see also Nelson, 282 

F.3d at 1060 (Congress intended “any person” in civil liability provisions to 

include furnishers).

3. In 2003, Congress further expanded consumers’ ability to seek 

relief for violations of the FCRA when it passed the Fair and Accurate 

Credit Transactions Act, Pub. L. No. 108-159, 117 Stat. 1952 (2003), which 

“extend[ed] the statute of limitations” for FCRA violations. 149 Cong. Rec.

E2512-02 (daily ed. Nov. 21, 2003) (statement of Rep. Oxley). As amended, 

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 15 of 47
8

the statute of limitations provision states that “[a]n action to enforce any 

liability created under [the FCRA] may be brought . . . not later than the 

earlier of – (1) 2 years after the date of discovery by the plaintiff of the 

violation that is the basis for such liability; or (2) 5 years after the date on 

which the violation that is the basis for such liability occurs.” 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1681p. Congress made this amendment following a 2001 Supreme Court 

decision holding that the prior version of the FCRA’s statute of limitations 

provision generally did not incorporate a “discovery rule” such as that now 

present in Section 1681p(1). See TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 23 

(2001) (interpreting 15 U.S.C. § 1681p (1994 ed. & Supp. V)). 

4. Despite Congress’s repeated efforts to promote accuracy, errors 

persist in consumer reports. In a 2012 study conducted by the Commission, 

roughly 20% of participants had an error in at least one of their consumer

reports. Fed. Trade Comm’n, Report to Congress Under Section 319 of the 

Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 iv (2012) (FTC Report), 

available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/

reports/section-319-fair-and-accurate-credit-transactions-act-2003-fifthinterim-federal-trade-commission/130211factareport.pdf. Similarly, 

according to one estimate, at least six million Americans have errors in

their reports serious enough to result in a denial of credit, and the number 

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 16 of 47
9

could be as high as fifty million. Nat’l Consumer Law Ctr., Automated 

Injustice 1, 5, 7 (2009) (NCLC Report), available at https://www.nclc.org/

images/pdf/pr-reports/report-automated_injustice.pdf.

B. Facts and Procedural History

According to the allegations in Plaintiff-Appellant Anthony Rivera’s 

complaint, Rivera declared bankruptcy in January 2003 and received a 

discharge of personal liability for his mortgage loan in May of that year. 

Compl. ¶¶ 14-16. At the time of the bankruptcy, the mortgage loan was 

serviced by Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. Id. ¶ 15. Rivera alleges that 

Washington Mutual Bank correctly reported to CRAs that the loan had a 

zero balance as a result of the bankruptcy discharge. Id. ¶ 17. In September 

2009, Defendant-Appellee JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase) acquired 

servicing rights for Rivera’s mortgage loan. Id. ¶ 18. 

Rivera alleges that, in March 2013, he obtained his consumer report 

from a CRA and discovered that Chase had reported that his discharged 

mortgage loan had an outstanding balance and that Rivera was delinquent 

on the loan. Compl. ¶¶ 19-20. Rivera alleges that he disputed the 

information with CRAs, including in January 2015. Id. ¶ 21. In particular, 

Rivera alleges that he provided information for Equifax, one of the three 

nationwide CRAs, to forward to Chase and that this information was 

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 17 of 47
10

sufficient to correct the alleged error. Id. ¶ 22. According to Rivera, Chase 

responded to Rivera’s dispute by instructing Equifax to continue reporting 

his mortgage loan as due and owing. Id. Rivera further alleges that the 

inaccurate reporting of his mortgage loan balance and delinquency status 

has adversely affected his credit score. Id. ¶¶ 20, 23. 

Rivera, acting pro se, sued Chase in the Superior Court of the District 

of Columbia on June 17, 2015. With respect to the FCRA, he alleges that 

Chase willfully, Compl. ¶¶ 31-36, and negligently, id. ¶¶ 37-41, failed to 

conduct a reasonable investigation of his dispute, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1681s-2(b).5 Chase removed the case to federal court on July 7, 2015. 

On October 26, 2015, the district court granted Chase’s motion to 

dismiss Rivera’s complaint. Mem. Op. I p. 1. The district court concluded 

that, under 15 U.S.C. § 1681p(1), Rivera was required to file his complaint 

within two years of having discovered the alleged error on his consumer 

5 Rivera’s first cause of action is captioned “Willful Failure To Reasonably 

Reinvestigate in Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a).” Compl. p. 7 (emphasis 

added). While the caption cites Section 1681s-2(a), which prohibits 

furnishers from furnishing inaccurate information, the body of the 

complaint refers only to furnishers’ obligation to investigate under Section 

1681s-2(b). Id. ¶¶ 37-41. In Rivera’s motion to alter or amend, he clarified 

that he was not seeking a judgment under Section 1681s-2(a), which he 

understood could not be enforced by private plaintiffs. Mot. to Alter or 

Amend p. 2; see also supra n.3. Instead, his first cause of action was for a 

willful violation of Section 1681s-2(b) and his second was for a negligent 

violation of the same provision.

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 18 of 47
11

report in March 2013. Because Rivera filed his complaint in June 2015, the 

district held that he failed to satisfy the two-year limitations period in 

Section 1681p.6 Id. p. 5. In reaching that conclusion, the court rejected 

Rivera’s argument that liability under Section 1681s-2(b) cannot attach –

and the statute of limitations for a violation of that provision therefore 

cannot begin to run – until a furnisher fails to conduct a reasonable 

investigation after a consumer lodges a dispute with a CRA. Pl.’s Opp’n to 

Mot. to Dismiss pp. 1-2. Rivera moved the court to alter or amend its order 

as having been granted in clear error of the law; the court denied the 

motion on December 10, 2015. Mem. Op. II p. 1. 

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The district court erred in concluding that Rivera’s claim under 15 

U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) was barred by the FCRA’s statute of limitations. The 

plain text of the FCRA’s statute of limitations provides that a consumer 

lawsuit must be brought within the earlier of 5 years of the violation that is 

the basis for liability and “2 years after the date of discovery by the plaintiff 

of the violation that is the basis for such liability.” Id. § 1681p(1). Here, the 

“violation that is the basis” for Rivera’s claim is Chase’s alleged failure to 

6 The court did not address other FCRA arguments in the parties’ briefing, 

such as whether Rivera had adequately pleaded other elements of his 

Section 1681s-2(b) claims or whether he was entitled to amend his 

complaint. 

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 19 of 47
12

investigate Rivera’s dispute, which he submitted in January 2015. Because 

Rivera filed his complaint against Chase only five months later, he 

manifestly satisfies the FCRA’s statute of limitations.

The district court erred because it concluded that the statute of 

limitations began to run at a much earlier time – when Rivera discovered 

the allegedly incorrect information that Chase placed on his consumer 

report. That date, however, is irrelevant to the time for bringing suit for a 

failure to conduct a reasonable investigation under Section 1681s-2(b). 

Both the text of Section 1681p and the background principles applicable to 

statutes of limitations make clear that the limitations period begins to run 

only after a plaintiff’s claim has accrued (i.e., after the “violation” has 

occurred) and, if a discovery rule is applicable, only after the plaintiff knew 

or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known of the 

violation.

In denying Rivera’s motion to alter or amend, the district court 

referred to district court decisions that address a separate question: 

whether a new violation – and accordingly, a new limitations period –

should arise each time a consumer files a dispute with a CRA over the same 

item of allegedly incomplete or inaccurate information. Those cases are not 

relevant here, where there is no allegation in the complaint that Rivera has 

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 20 of 47
13

filed multiple disputes with respect to the same information. Nor was 

Rivera’s dispute with the CRA otherwise untimely; the FCRA does not limit 

the time within which a consumer who has discovered inaccuracies in his 

consumer report must dispute them with a CRA, nor does it condition or 

limit a furnisher’s obligations under Section 1681s-2(b) based on the time it 

took for the consumer to submit his dispute to the CRA.

Because Rivera filed his complaint against Chase for failure to 

conduct a reasonable investigation under Section 1681s-2(b) within the 

two-year period set forth in Section 1681p(1), the district court’s dismissal 

of his complaint should be reversed.

ARGUMENT

THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A VIOLATION OF 15 

U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) DOES NOT EXPIRE UNTIL THE EARLIER OF 

TWO YEARS AFTER THE CONSUMER DISCOVERS A 

FURNISHER’S FAILURE TO CONDUCT A REASONABLE 

INVESTIGATION OR FIVE YEARS AFTER THAT FAILURE 

OCCURS.

A. Rivera’s Claims Under Section 1681s-2(b) Are Timely.

Section 1681p establishes two limitations periods by which a 

consumer must bring an action for a violation of the FCRA. First, if the 

consumer has discovered the violation, then the “action to enforce any 

liability” created under the FCRA must be brought “2 years after the date of 

discovery by the plaintiff of the violation that is the basis for such liability.” 

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 21 of 47
14

15 U.S.C. § 1681p(1). Second, regardless of whether the consumer has 

discovered the violation, the action must be brought “5 years after the date 

on which the violation that is the basis for such liability occurs.” Id.

§ 1681p(2). Under the plain text of Section 1681p, the limitations period for 

a particular FCRA claim cannot begin to run until the relevant FCRA 

“violation” has occurred. And the shorter two-year limitations period 

cannot begin until the plaintiff “discover[s]” the relevant violation.

In this case, however, the district court considered the limitations 

period to have commenced at a different, much earlier date. Although 

Rivera claimed that Chase violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) by failing to 

conduct a reasonable investigation of his dispute about the reporting of his 

discharged mortgage loan, Compl. ¶¶ 32-33, 38-39, the district court 

concluded that the limitations period commenced when he discovered the 

allegedly inaccurate information in his consumer report – well before the 

alleged violation of Section 1681s-2(b) occurred. See Mem. Op. I p. 5. The 

district court further concluded that it was appropriate to dismiss Rivera’s 

complaint on statute-of-limitations grounds because “the complaint on its 

face is conclusively time-barred” and “no reasonable person could disagree 

on the date on which the cause of action accrued.” Id. pp. 4-5 (citing 

DePippo v. Chertoff, 453 F. Supp. 2d 30, 33 (D.D.C. 2006)). Because the 

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 22 of 47
15

district court’s dismissal of Rivera’s complaint based on the statute of 

limitations cannot be reconciled with Section 1681p, the district court’s 

decision should be reversed.

1. The timeline of events alleged in the complaint is as follows:

x March 2013 – Rivera discovers the alleged error on his 

consumer report. Compl. ¶ 19.

x January 2015 – Rivera files a dispute with a CRA. Id. ¶¶ 21-22. 

x June 2015 – Rivera files his FCRA complaint against Chase. 

Rivera alleges that Chase failed to correct its reporting of his account in 

response to his January 2015 dispute and instead reported that the account 

was “due and owing.” Compl. ¶ 22. Rivera further alleges that “Chase has

failed to use reasonable investigation practices for ascertaining the accuracy 

of information” concerning discharged debts. Id. ¶¶ 32, 38.7 Chase’s alleged 

7 Rivera’s use of the term “reasonable investigation” reflects that every 

circuit court to address the extent to which a furnisher must investigate a 

dispute has concluded that the investigation conducted under Section 

1681s-2(b) must be “reasonable.” See, e.g., Boggio v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 

696 F.3d 611, 616 (6th Cir. 2012); Chiang, 595 F.3d at 36; Gorman v. 

Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2009); Westra v. 

Credit Control of Pinellas, 409 F.3d 825, 827 (7th Cir. 2005); Johnson v. 

MBNA Am. Bank, 357 F.3d 426, 430 (4th Cir. 2004). As explained by the 

first court of appeals to consider the question, “[i]t would make little sense 

to conclude that, in creating a system intended to give consumers a means 

to dispute – and, ultimately, correct – inaccurate information on their 

credit reports, Congress used the term ‘investigation’ to include superficial, 

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 23 of 47
16

actions and failures could have occurred only after January 2015, when 

Rivera filed his dispute with a CRA. He filed his complaint five months 

later, in June 2015. 

As this timeline makes manifest, Rivera’s complaint against Chase for 

its alleged violation of Section 1681s-2(b) was timely filed. Chase could not 

have violated Section 1681s-2(b)’s requirement that it conduct a reasonable 

investigation until after January 2015, when Rivera filed his dispute with 

the CRA. And Rivera could not have discovered Chase’s allegedly 

inadequate investigation until, at the earliest, Rivera obtained the results of 

Chase’s investigation. Because all of the relevant events occurred in the 

five-month period between the date that Rivera filed his dispute with the 

CRA and the date he filed his complaint, Rivera’s claim under Section 

1681s-2(b) is timely under both the two-year and the five-year limitations 

periods set forth in Section 1681p.

2. The district court concluded that Rivera failed to meet the statute 

of limitations because he filed his complaint more than two years after he 

discovered that Chase had been reporting his discharged mortgage loan as 

past due and having an outstanding balance. Mem. Op. I p. 5. For purposes 

of Rivera’s Section 1681s-2(b) claim, however, the date on which he 

unreasonable inquiries by creditors.” Johnson, 357 F.3d at 430-31 

(emphasis in original).

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 24 of 47
17

discovered the alleged error is irrelevant to the time for bringing suit for a 

failure to conduct a reasonable investigation. As one district court has 

explained, “the date that the consumer learned that his credit report 

contained inaccuracies [is not] actually relevant in the calculus” for 

determining the statute of limitations for a Section 1681s-2(b) claim.

Broccuto v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 2008 WL 1969222, at *3 (E.D. 

Va. May 6, 2008); see also Vasquez v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2015 WL 

7075628, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2015) (rejecting furnisher’s contention 

that statute of limitations for Section 1681s-2(b) claim began to run on date 

consumer discovered the inaccurate reporting). Instead, a furnisher’s duty 

to investigate arises when it “receives notice of a dispute from a consumer,” 

Broccuto, 2008 WL 1969222, at *3, and, as explained above, the relevant 

violation does not occur until the furnisher fails to satisfy its duties in 

response to a consumer dispute filed with a CRA. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). 

Under Section 1681p(1), “[t]he statute of limitations accrues based on the 

date the violation was discovered by the consumer.” Id. (emphasis added). 

Not only does the district court’s conclusion contravene the plain 

language of the FCRA, but it also violates “the standard rule for limitations 

periods,” which is that a “limitations period commences when the plaintiff 

has a complete and present cause of action,” meaning that “the plaintiff can 

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 25 of 47
18

file suit and obtain relief.” Green v. Brennan, --- U.S. ----, 2016 WL 

2945236, at *5-6 (May 23, 2016) (internal quotation marks modified) 

(quoting Graham Cnty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States 

ex rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409, 418 (2005); Bay Area Laundry & Dry 

Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Cal. Inc., 522 U.S. 192, 201 

(1997)). Put another way, “[s]tatutes of limitations require plaintiffs to 

pursue ‘diligent prosecution of known claims.’” CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 

134 S. Ct. 2175, 2183 (2014) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1546 (9th ed. 

2009)). A plaintiff typically cannot prosecute a known claim until the 

violation of law that forms the basis for the claim has occurred. Instead of 

following this “standard rule,” the district court incorrectly concluded that 

“the moment when liability attaches” – i.e., when the violation occurred –

“and the moment when the statute of limitations period accrues are distinct 

issues.” Mem. Op. I p. 6. To the contrary, under the standard rule and the 

text of the FCRA’s five-year limitations period, 15 U.S.C. § 1681p(2), those 

dates are one and the same. 

Furthermore, when a statute of limitations is based on a discovery 

rule, the occurrence of the violation alone does not suffice to trigger that 

statute. Under those circumstances, the district court was correct to 

conclude that the date liability attaches differs from the date the statute of 

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 26 of 47
19

limitations begins to run, Mem. Op. I p. 6; with a discovery rule, the statute 

cannot begin to run until the plaintiff knew, “or through the exercise of 

reasonable diligence should have known,” of the violation. Jones v. Rogers 

Mem’l Hosp., 442 F.2d 773, 774-75 (D.C. Cir. 1971); see also Merck & Co., 

Inc. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633, 648, 650-52 (2010) (the term 

“‘discovery’ . . . encompasses not only those facts the plaintiff actually knew, 

but also those facts a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have known”; 

rejecting argument that statute begins to run when plaintiff encounters 

facts putting her on “inquiry notice”). As a result, in the context of the 

FCRA, courts have held that Section 1681p(1)’s two-year statute of 

limitations based on the date of discovery “runs from the date a reasonably 

diligent plaintiff would have discovered the facts constituting the violation, 

not the discovery of facts that put a plaintiff on inquiry notice.” Banga v. 

Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 2013 WL 71772, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2013). 

In this case, Rivera could not have either discovered or successfully 

pursued his Section 1681s-2(b) claim against Chase upon discovering the 

alleged error on his consumer report, because Chase had no duty to 

conduct an investigation until after Rivera filed his dispute with the CRA. It 

is only after Rivera submitted his dispute that Chase’s Section 1681s-2(b) 

duties arose, Rivera could have discovered the violation, and the limitations 

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 27 of 47
20

period under Section 1681p(1) could have commenced. Because the running 

of the FCRA’s statute of limitations is tied to the “violation that is the basis 

for such liability,” 15 U.S.C. § 1681p, the standard rule is fully consistent 

with the plain language of the statute. Neither the standard rule nor the 

statutory text regard Rivera’s discovery of the alleged error on his consumer 

report as the starting point for the limitations period for a violation of 

Section 1681s-2(b).

B. Decisions Concerning Furnisher Liability Under Section 

1681s-2(b) for Repeated Disputes About the Same 

Information Are Not Relevant Here. 

In denying Rivera’s motion to alter or amend, the district court was 

not persuaded by Rivera’s argument that “a furnisher is liable for each and 

every violation of the Act.”8 Mem. Op. II p. 3. Instead, it referred to a split 

in district court decisions that, properly understood, addresses a separate 

question: whether a new violation – and accordingly, a new limitations 

period – should arise each time a consumer files a dispute with a CRA over 

8 Rivera presumably raised this argument because the district court had 

interpreted Rivera’s complaint as bringing “two causes of action under the 

FCRA – one under Section 1681s-2(a) and another under Section 1681s2(b).” Mem. Op. I p. 5. But as noted supra note 5, the body of Rivera’s 

complaint makes no reference to Section 1681s-2(a) and instead raises two 

claims under Section 1681s-2(b). Compl. ¶¶ 31-41. In any event, because 

“[t]he limitations-period analysis is always conducted claim by claim,” 

Green, 2016 WL 2945236, at *10, even if Rivera had raised a separate claim 

under Section 1681s-2(a), his Section 1681s-2(b) claim was timely. 

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 28 of 47
21

the same item of allegedly incomplete or inaccurate information. See id.

(citing Bittick v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 419 F. Supp. 2d 917 (N.D. 

Tex. 2006), and Blackwell v. Capital One Bank, 2008 WL 793476 (S.D. Ga. 

Mar. 25, 2008)). The cases cited by the district court decline to find a new 

violation and limitations period for subsequent disputes, on the grounds 

that to do so “would allow plaintiffs to indefinitely extend the limitations 

period by simply sending another complaint letter to the credit reporting 

agency.” Bittick, 419 F. Supp. 2d at 919; see also Blackwell, 2008 WL 

793476, at *3. As the district court also noted, other federal district courts 

“have ruled differently on this specific matter,” Mem. Op. II p. 3, holding 

that each consumer complaint to a CRA constitutes a separate violation that 

starts a separate limitations period. See, e.g., Vasquez, 2015 WL 7075628, 

at *3 (“each dispute letter triggers a duty to investigate, regardless of 

whether the information has been previously disputed”); Broccuto, 2008 

WL 1969222, at *4 (“[t]he statute’s construction creates a violation every 

time a consumer submits a dispute to a credit reporting agency and that 

agency or the relevant lender does not respond to the complaint,” 

regardless of whether the information “may have also been the subject of a 

previous dispute”).

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 29 of 47
22

The existence of cases like Bittick and Blackwell does not justify the 

district court’s decision in this case, where there is no allegation in the 

complaint that Rivera filed multiple identical disputes. Nor would there be 

other grounds to contend that these cases are relevant because Rivera 

somehow circumvented the FCRA’s statute of limitations provision. While 

Rivera alleges that he filed a dispute with a CRA in January 2015 – 22 

months after he discovered the alleged error on his consumer report –

nothing in the FCRA limits the time within which a consumer who has 

discovered inaccuracies in his consumer report must dispute them with a 

CRA. See Thomasian v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2014 WL 1244892, at *9 

(D. Or. Mar. 25, 2014) (“[W]hen it comes to a claim that a furnisher has 

made an unreasonable investigation of a dispute, or failed to correct or 

remove erroneous information after such an investigation, it makes no 

difference how long the furnisher has been reporting the allegedly false 

information before the consumer initiates a dispute.”). Nor does the FCRA 

condition or limit a furnisher’s obligations under Section 1681s-2(b) based 

on the time it took for the consumer to submit his dispute to the CRA. To 

impose such a limitation would curtail an important mechanism for 

correcting errors, frustrating Congress’s goal of enhancing the accuracy of 

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 30 of 47
23

consumer reports for the benefit of both consumers and the efficiency of 

the markets that rely on consumer reports. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681.9

For this reason and those explained above, the district court’s 

decisions in this case cannot withstand scrutiny. 

CONCLUSION

The decisions of the district court should be reversed.

Dated: June 7, 2016

David C. Shonka

Acting General Counsel

Joel Marcus

Director of Litigation

Theodore (Jack) Metzler

Attorney

Federal Trade Commission

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Melanie Hirsch __________

Mary McLeod

General Counsel

John Coleman

Assistant General Counsel

Nandan M. Joshi

Senior Litigation Counsel

Melanie Hirsch

9 If this Court nonetheless concludes that it is necessary to address the 

question of multiple disputes, the Court should adopt the position of the 

“majority of courts,” which “have concluded that each separate notice of 

dispute triggers a duty to investigate the disputed information, . . . and each 

time a furnisher fails reasonably to investigate the dispute results in a new 

FRCA violation.” Vasquez, 2015 WL 7075628, at *3 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). This result comports with both the text and purpose of the 

statute. Id.; Broccuto, 2008 WL 1969222, at *4; Marcinski v. RBS Citizens 

Bank, N.A., 36 F. Supp. 3d 286, 291 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); Maiteki v. Marten 

Transp. Ltd., 4 F. Supp. 3d 1249, 1254 (D. Colo. 2013). Furthermore, it 

reflects both Congress’s goal of promoting accuracy and the unfortunate 

reality that consumers may need to file multiple disputes to correct errors. 

See FTC Report vi (63% of consumers who disputed errors did not have all 

of their concerns resolved); NCLC Report 3, 8, 9-11 (providing examples of 

failure to correct despite repeated disputes, with outcomes including a $2.7 

million punitive damages verdict and one consumer’s suicide).

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 31 of 47
24

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, D.C. 20580

(202) 326-3502 (telephone)

(202) 326-2477 (facsimile)

tmetzler@ftc.gov

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

Federal Trade Commission

Counsel

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

1700 G Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20552

(202) 435-7944 (telephone)

(202) 435-7024 (facsimile)

melanie.hirsch@cfpb.gov

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 32 of 47
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a)

I hereby certify that this brief complies with the type-volume 

limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because it contains 6,199 words, 

excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii) 

and Circuit Rule 32(e)(1). I further certify that this brief complies with the 

typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style 

requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because it has been prepared in 

14-point Georgia, a proportionally spaced typeface, using Microsoft Word 

2010. 

Dated: June 7, 2016 /s/ Melanie Hirsch

Melanie Hirsch

Attorney for Amicus Curiae

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

1700 G Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20552

(202) 435-7944 (telephone)

(202) 435-7024 (facsimile)

melanie.hirsch@cfpb.gov

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 33 of 47
ADDENDUM

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 34 of 47
ADDENDUM TABLE OF CONTENTS

15 U.S.C. § 1681i. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy .........................A-1

15 U.S.C. § 1681n. Civil liability for willful noncompliance....................... A-3

15 U.S.C. § 1681o. Civil liability for negligent noncompliance .................. A-3

15 U.S.C. § 1681p. Jurisdiction of courts; limitation of actions................. A-4

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2. Responsibilities of furnishers of information

to consumer reporting agencies ........................................................... A-4

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 35 of 47
A-1

15 U.S.C. § 1681i. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy

(a) Reinvestigations of disputed information

(1)Reinvestigation required.—

(A) In general.—Subject to subsection (f) of this section, if the 

completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a 

consumer’s file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the 

consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly 

through a reseller, of such dispute, the agency shall, free of charge, 

conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the 

disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of 

the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in 

accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period 

beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the 

dispute from the consumer or reseller.

(B) Extension of period to reinvestigate.—Except as provided in 

subparagraph (C), the 30-day period described in subparagraph (A) 

may be extended for not more than 15 additional days if the consumer 

reporting agency receives information from the consumer during that 

30-day period that is relevant to the reinvestigation.

(C) Limitations on extension of period to reinvestigate.—

Subparagraph (B) shall not apply to any reinvestigation in which, 

during the 30-day period described in subparagraph (A), the 

information that is the subject of the reinvestigation is found to be 

inaccurate or incomplete or the consumer reporting agency 

determines that the information cannot be verified.

(2) Prompt notice of dispute to furnisher of information.—

(A) In general.—Before the expiration of the 5-business-day period 

beginning on the date on which a consumer reporting agency receives 

notice of a dispute from any consumer or a reseller in accordance 

with paragraph (1), the agency shall provide notification of the 

dispute to any person who provided any item of information in 

dispute, at the address and in the manner established with the 

person. The notice shall include all relevant information regarding 

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 36 of 47
A-2

the dispute that the agency has received from the consumer or 

reseller.

(B) Provision of other information.—The consumer reporting agency 

shall promptly provide to the person who provided the information in 

dispute all relevant information regarding the dispute that is received 

by the agency from the consumer or the reseller after the period 

referred to in subparagraph (A) and before the end of the period 

referred to in paragraph (1)(A).

(3) Determination that dispute is frivolous or irrelevant.—

(A) In general.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a consumer 

reporting agency may terminate a reinvestigation of information 

disputed by a consumer under that paragraph if the agency 

reasonably determines that the dispute by the consumer is frivolous 

or irrelevant, including by reason of a failure by a consumer to 

provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed 

information.

(B) Notice of determination.—Upon making any determination in 

accordance with subparagraph (A) that a dispute is frivolous or 

irrelevant, a consumer reporting agency shall notify the consumer of 

such determination not later than 5 business days after making such 

determination, by mail or, if authorized by the consumer for that 

purpose, by any other means available to the agency.

(C) Contents of notice.—A notice under subparagraph (B) shall 

include—

(i) the reasons for the determination under subparagraph (A); and

(ii) identification of any information required to investigate the 

disputed information, which may consist of a standardized form 

describing the general nature of such information.

* * *

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 37 of 47
A-3

15 U.S.C. § 1681n. Civil liability for willful noncompliance

(a) In general

Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed 

under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that 

consumer in an amount equal to the sum of—

(1)(A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the 

failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000; or

(B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a 

consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a 

permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a 

result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater;

(2) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow; and

(3) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this 

section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney’s fees 

as determined by the court.

* * *

15 U.S.C. § 1681o. Civil liability for negligent noncompliance

(a) In general

Any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement 

imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to 

that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of—

(1) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the

failure; and

(2) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this 

section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney’s fees 

as determined by the court.

* * *

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 38 of 47
A-4

15 U.S.C. § 1681p. Jurisdiction of courts; limitation of actions

An action to enforce any liability created under this subchapter may be 

brought in any appropriate United States district court, without regard to 

the amount in controversy, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, 

not later than the earlier of—

(1) 2 years after the date of discovery by the plaintiff of the violation that 

is the basis for such liability; or

(2) 5 years after the date on which the violation that is the basis for such 

liability occurs.

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2. Responsibilities of furnishers of information 

to consumer reporting agencies

(a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information

(1) Prohibition

(A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors

A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to 

any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable 

cause to believe that the information is inaccurate.

(B) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors

A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any 

consumer reporting agency if—

(i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address 

specified by the person for such notices, that specific information 

is inaccurate; and

(ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate.

(C) No address requirement

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 39 of 47
A-5

A person who clearly and conspicuously specifies to the consumer an 

address for notices referred to in subparagraph (B) shall not be 

subject to subparagraph (A); however, nothing in subparagraph (B) 

shall require a person to specify such an address.

(D) Definition

For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term “reasonable cause to 

believe that the information is inaccurate” means having specific 

knowledge, other than solely allegations by the consumer, that would 

cause a reasonable person to have substantial doubts about the 

accuracy of the information.

(2) Duty to correct and update information

A person who—

(A) regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes 

information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about the 

person’s transactions or experiences with any consumer; and

(B) has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that 

the person determines is not complete or accurate,

shall promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that 

determination and provide to the agency any corrections to that 

information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the 

information provided by the person to the agency complete and 

accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any of the 

information that remains not complete or accurate.

(3) Duty to provide notice of dispute

If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any 

person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a 

consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer 

reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the 

consumer.

(4) Duty to provide notice of closed accounts

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 40 of 47
A-6

A person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes 

information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a consumer who 

has a credit account with that person shall notify the agency of the 

voluntary closure of the account by the consumer, in information 

regularly furnished for the period in which the account is closed.

(5) Duty to provide notice of delinquency of accounts

(A) In general

A person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency 

regarding a delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to 

profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action shall, not later than 

90 days after furnishing the information, notify the agency of the date 

of delinquency on the account, which shall be the month and year of 

the commencement of the delinquency on the account that 

immediately preceded the action.

(B) Rule of construction

For purposes of this paragraph only, and provided that the consumer 

does not dispute the information, a person that furnishes information 

on a delinquent account that is placed for collection, charged for 

profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action, complies with this 

paragraph, if—

(i) the person reports the same date of delinquency as that 

provided by the creditor to which the account was owed at the time 

at which the commencement of the delinquency occurred, if the 

creditor previously reported that date of delinquency to a 

consumer reporting agency;

(ii) the creditor did not previously report the date of delinquency 

to a consumer reporting agency, and the person establishes and 

follows reasonable procedures to obtain the date of delinquency 

from the creditor or another reliable source and reports that date 

to a consumer reporting agency as the date of delinquency; or

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 41 of 47
A-7

(iii) the creditor did not previously report the date of delinquency 

to a consumer reporting agency and the date of delinquency 

cannot be reasonably obtained as provided in clause (ii), the 

person establishes and follows reasonable procedures to ensure 

the date reported as the date of delinquency precedes the date on 

which the account is placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, 

or subjected to any similar action, and reports such date to the 

credit reporting agency.

(6) Duties of furnishers upon notice of identity theft-related information

(A) Reasonable procedures

A person that furnishes information to any consumer reporting 

agency shall have in place reasonable procedures to respond to any 

notification that it receives from a consumer reporting agency 

under section 1681c-2 of this title relating to information resulting 

from identity theft, to prevent that person from refurnishing such 

blocked information.

(B) Information alleged to result from identity theft

If a consumer submits an identity theft report to a person who 

furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency at the address 

specified by that person for receiving such reports stating that 

information maintained by such person that purports to relate to the 

consumer resulted from identity theft, the person may not furnish 

such information that purports to relate to the consumer to any 

consumer reporting agency, unless the person subsequently knows or 

is informed by the consumer that the information is correct.

(7) Negative information

(A) Notice to consumer required

(i) In general

If any financial institution that extends credit and regularly and in 

the ordinary course of business furnishes information to a 

consumer reporting agency described in section 1681a(p) of this 

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 42 of 47
A-8

title furnishes negative information to such an agency regarding 

credit extended to a customer, the financial institution shall 

provide a notice of such furnishing of negative information, in 

writing, to the customer.

(ii) Notice effective for subsequent submissions

After providing such notice, the financial institution may submit 

additional negative information to a consumer reporting agency 

described in section 1681a(p) of this title with respect to the same 

transaction, extension of credit, account, or customer without 

providing additional notice to the customer.

* * *

(8) Ability of consumer to dispute information directly with furnisher

(A) In general

The Bureau, in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, the 

Federal banking agencies, and the National Credit Union 

Administration, shall prescribe regulations that shall identify the 

circumstances under which a furnisher shall be required to 

reinvestigate a dispute concerning the accuracy of information 

contained in a consumer report on the consumer, based on a direct 

request of a consumer.

* * *

(b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute

(1) In general

After receiving notice pursuant to section 1681i(a)(2) of this title of a 

dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information 

provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall—

(A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 43 of 47
A-9

(B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer 

reporting agency pursuant to section 1681i(a)(2) of this title;

(C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting 

agency;

(D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or 

inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting 

agencies to which the person furnished the information and that 

compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis; and

(E) if an item of information disputed by a consumer is found to be 

inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified after any 

reinvestigation under paragraph (1), for purposes of reporting to a 

consumer reporting agency only, as appropriate, based on the results 

of the reinvestigation promptly—

(i) modify that item of information;

(ii) delete that item of information; or

(iii) permanently block the reporting of that item of information.

(2) Deadline

A person shall complete all investigations, reviews, and reports required 

under paragraph (1) regarding information provided by the person to a 

consumer reporting agency, before the expiration of the period 

under section 1681i(a)(1) of this title within which the consumer 

reporting agency is required to complete actions required by that section 

regarding that information.

(c) Limitation on liability

Except as provided in section 1681s(c)(1)(B) of this title, sections 

1681n and 1681o of this title do not apply to any violation of--

(1) subsection (a) of this section, including any regulations issued 

thereunder;

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 44 of 47
A-10

(2) subsection (e) of this section, except that nothing in this paragraph 

shall limit, expand, or otherwise affect liability under section 1681n or 

16810 of this title, as applicable, for violations of subsection (b) of this 

section; or

(3) subsection (e) of section 1681m of this title.

(d) Limitation on enforcement

The provisions of law described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection 

(c) of this section (other than with respect to the exception described in 

paragraph (2) of subsection (c) of this section) shall be enforced exclusively 

as provided under section 1681s of this title by the Federal agencies and 

officials and the State officials identified in section 1681s of this title.

(e) Accuracy guidelines and regulations required

(1) Guidelines

The Bureau shall, with respect to persons or entities that are subject to 

the enforcement authority of the Bureau under section 1681sof this 

title—

(A) establish and maintain guidelines for use by each person that 

furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding the 

accuracy and integrity of the information relating to consumers that 

such entities furnish to consumer reporting agencies, and update 

such guidelines as often as necessary; and

(B) prescribe regulations requiring each person that furnishes 

information to a consumer reporting agency to establish reasonable 

policies and procedures for implementing the guidelines established 

pursuant to subparagraph (A).

(2) Criteria

In developing the guidelines required by paragraph (1)(A), the Bureau 

shall—

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 45 of 47
A-11

(A) identify patterns, practices, and specific forms of activity that can 

compromise the accuracy and integrity of information furnished to 

consumer reporting agencies;

(B) review the methods (including technological means) used to 

furnish information relating to consumers to consumer reporting 

agencies;

(C) determine whether persons that furnish information to consumer 

reporting agencies maintain and enforce policies to ensure the 

accuracy and integrity of information furnished to consumer 

reporting agencies; and

(D) examine the policies and processes that persons that furnish 

information to consumer reporting agencies employ to conduct 

reinvestigations and correct inaccurate information relating to 

consumers that has been furnished to consumer reporting agencies.

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 46 of 47
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk 

of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system on June 7, 2016. I 

certify that I have caused the foregoing to be served by mail on plaintiffappellant Anthony Rivera, at the address listed on the court’s docket. I 

certify that all other participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users 

and that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system.

Dated: June 7, 2016 /s/ Melanie Hirsch

Melanie Hirsch

Attorney for Amicus Curiae

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

1700 G Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20552

(202) 435-7944 (telephone)

(202) 435-7024 (facsimile)

melanie.hirsch@cfpb.gov

USCA Case #16-7008 Document #1617647 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 47 of 47