Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

No. 21-2430 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

Stefan Ingram, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

Waypoint Resource Group, LLC, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

Hon. Mitchell S. Goldberg 

Case No. 2:18-cv-3776 

Brief of Amici Curiae 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

and Federal Trade Commission 

in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant and Reversal 

Anisha S. Dasgupta Seth Frotman 

General Counsel General Counsel 

Joel Marcus Steven Y. Bressler 

Deputy General Counsel Acting Deputy General Counsel 

Imad D. Abyad Laura Hussain 

Attorney Assistant General Counsel 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Ryan Cooper 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Senior Counsel 

Washington, DC 20580 CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

(202) 326-3579 PROTECTION BUREAU 

iabyad@ftc.gov 1700 G Street NW 

Washington, DC 20552 

(202) 702-7541 

ryan.cooper@cfpb.gov 
Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................... i 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................... ii 

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .............................................................1 

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

A. Consumer Credit Reporting ....................................................... 3 

B. The FCRA ................................................................................... 5 

1. Direct Disputes ....................................................................... 7 

2. Indirect Disputes .................................................................... 8 

C. Facts ......................................................................................... 10 

D. Procedural History ....................................................................12 

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...............................................................14 

ARGUMENT.........................................................................................16 

I. When a consumer reporting agency forwards a dispute to a 

furnisher, the furnisher is required to conduct an 

investigation. .................................................................................16 

A. The statutory text is unambiguous. ...........................................16 

B. If Congress intended to create an exception for frivolous 

disputes, it would have said so. ................................................ 18 

II. Consumers are entitled to notice of the outcome of their 

disputes and an opportunity to cure..............................................21 

III. The FCRA already protects furnishers from frivolous 

disputes......................................................................................... 24 

CONCLUSION.....................................................................................28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases Page(s) 

Argueta-Orellana v. Att’y Gen. United States, 

35 F.4th 144 (3d Cir. 2022) .....................................................................24 

Aristy-Rosa v. Att’y Gen. United States, 

994 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2021) ..................................................................... 19 

BFP v. Resol. Tr. Corp., 

511 U.S. 531 (1994)................................................................................... 19 

Boggio v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 

696 F.3d 611 (6th Cir. 2012)....................................................................26 

Chiang v. MBNA, 

620 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2010)...................................................................... 25 

Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 

447 U.S. 102 (1980) ..................................................................................17 

Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 

617 F.3d 688 (3d Cir. 2010).................................................................6, 24 

Gov’t of Virgin Islands v. Knight, 

989 F.2d 619 (3d Cir. 1993) ......................................................................17 

Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 

530 U.S. 1 (2000) .................................................................................... 18 

In re Am. Pad & Paper Co., 

478 F.3d 546 (3d Cir. 2007) .................................................................... 18 

Ingram v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 

No. 18-cv-3776, 2021 WL 2681275 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2021).......... passim 

Intel Corp. Inv. Pol’y Comm. v. Sulyma, 

140 S. Ct. 768 (2020)............................................................................... 18 

Johnson v. MBNA Am. Bank, NA, 

357 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2004)................................................................... 27 

ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 

523 U.S. 26 (1998) ....................................................................................17 

Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 

282 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2002) ........................................................... 26, 27 

Noel v. First Premier Bank, 

No. 3:12-cv-50, 2012 WL 832992 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2012) ...................20 

Palouian v. FIA Card Servs., 

No. 13-cv-0293, 2013 WL 1827615 (E.D. Pa. May 1, 2013) .....................20 

Pennsylvania Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. Davenport, 

495 U.S. 552 (1990) ..................................................................................17 

Russello v. United States, 

464 U.S. 16 (1983) ................................................................................... 19 

SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 

138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018)...............................................................................17 

Scott v. First S. Nat’l Bank, 

936 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2019) ............................................................. 25, 26 

Seamans v. Temple Univ., 

744 F.3d 853 (3d Cir. 2014)........................................................... 6, 27, 28 

SimmsParris v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 

652 F.3d 355 (3d Cir. 2011) ............................................................... 25, 27 

United States v. Gonzales, 

520 U.S. 1 (1997).......................................................................................17 

United States v. Johnson, 

529 U.S. 53 (2000) .................................................................................. 21 

Statutes 

15 U.S.C. § 1681 ..........................................................................................1, 6 

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

15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A) ..............................................................................8 

iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(2)(A)........................................................................8, 25 

15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(3)(A)............................................................. 9, 18, 21, 25 

15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(3)(B)-(C) ................................................................. 9, 25 

15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(3)(C)...................................................................... 21, 22 

15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(A)..............................................................................8 

15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(6)...................................................................................8 

15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(6)(A)............................................................................ 22 

15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(6)(B)............................................................................ 22 

15 U.S.C. § 1681s(a)(1)...................................................................................2 

15 U.S.C. § 1681s(a)-(c) ................................................................................. 1 

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

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(D)(iii) ................................................................. 13 

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(E)(i)-(iv) ............................................................... 7 

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(E)(iii)..................................................................22 

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(F)(i) .......................................................... 7, 18, 20 

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(F)(i)(I) ................................................................ 13 

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(F)(ii) ................................................................... 22 

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(F)(ii)-(iii)..............................................................8 

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(F)(iii) .................................................................. 22 

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(A) .........................................................................17 

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(A)-(E).................................................................. 10 

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(C) ........................................................................ 22 

15 U.S.C. § 45(a) ............................................................................................ 1 

iv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

Regulations 

12 C.F.R. § 1022.43(e)(1)-(4)......................................................................... 7 

12 C.F.R. § 1022.43(f)(1)................................................................................ 7 

12 C.F.R. § 1022.43(f)(2)-(3).........................................................................8 

Other Authorities 

CFPB, Annual report of credit and consumer reporting complaints 

(Jan. 2022), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_fcra611-e_report_2022-01.pdf .................................................................... 3, 4 

CFPB, Consumer Response Annual Report (Mar. 2022), 

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_2021-consumerresponse-annual-report_2022-03.pdf ...................................................... 5 

CFPB, Key Dimensions and Processes in the U.S. Credit Reporting System: 

A Review of How the Nation’s Largest Credit Bureau’s Manage 

Consumer Data (Dec. 2012), 

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201212_cfpb_credit-reportingwhite-paper.pdf ........................................................................................11 

CFPB, Supervisory Highlights Consumer Reporting Special Edition 

(Dec. 2019), 

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_supervisoryhighlights_issue-20_122019.pdf............................................................... 6 

FTC, Report to Congress Under Section 319 of the Fair and Accurate 

Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (Jan. 2015), 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/section-319-fairaccurate-credit-transactions-act-2003-sixth-interim-final-report-federaltrade/150121factareport.pdf...................................................................... 4 

Liane Fiano, CFPB, Common errors people find on their credit report—and 

how to get them fixed (Feb. 5, 2019), 

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/common-errorscredit-report-and-how-get-them-fixed/....................................................4 

v 
 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

Syed Ejaz, Consumer Reports, A Broken System: How the Credit 

Reporting System Fails Consumers and What to Do About It 4 (June 10, 

2021), https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/06/A-Broken-System-How-the-Credit-ReportingSystem-Fails-Consumers-and-What-to-Do-About-It.pdf .........................4 

vi 
 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE 

To ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, the Fair Credit 

Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., imposes various 

requirements that consumer reporting agencies and the companies that 

provide those agencies information about consumers, known as furnishers, 

must follow. As relevant here, under Section 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA, when 

a consumer disputes information in her credit report with a consumer 

reporting agency and the agency forwards the dispute to the furnisher, the 

furnisher is required to conduct an investigation. 

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau or CFPB) has 

exclusive rule-writing authority for most provisions of the FCRA. 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1681s(e). The Bureau interprets and, along with various other federal and 

state regulators, enforces the law’s requirements. Id. § 1681s(a)-(c). These 

include the provision in Section 1681s-2(b) that furnishers must investigate 

disputes forwarded by consumer reporting agencies, which are known as 

“indirect disputes.” 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been charged by Congress 

with protecting consumers from deceptive or unfair trade practices. Id. 

§ 45(a). As part of that mission, the Commission has long played a key role 

in the implementation, enforcement, and interpretation of the FCRA. A 

1 
 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 9 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

violation of the FCRA “constitute[s] an unfair or deceptive act or practice in 

commerce, in violation of section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission 

Act.” Id. § 1681s(a)(1). And the FCRA grants the Commission “such 

procedural, investigative, and enforcement powers ... as though the 

applicable terms and conditions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were 

part of [the FCRA].” Id. 

The district court erred when it read an exception into Section 1681s2(b)’s requirement that furnishers investigate indirect disputes. It held that 

a furnisher is obligated to investigate only “bona fide” indirect disputes and 

may therefore decline to investigate any indirect dispute it deems frivolous. 

This atextual, judge-made exception to the plain language of the FCRA 

would have the effect of denying consumers an investigation to which they 

are legally entitled as well as notice of the result of that investigation. This 

outcome would undercut a central remedial purpose of the FCRA, which is 

to ensure that consumers are able to dispute and correct inaccurate 

information in their credit reports. A likely consequence would be an 

increase in the volume of consumer complaints related to credit reporting 

that the Bureau receives and is required to address. For all these reasons, 

the Bureau and the FTC have a substantial interest in the issues presented 

in this case. 

2 
 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 10 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

STATEMENT 

A. Consumer Credit Reporting 

Consumer credit reporting plays an important role in the lives of 

American consumers. The consumer credit reporting system includes: 

(1) consumer reporting agencies, which compile reports on consumers and 

make them available to lenders, insurers, employers, landlords, and other 

users, and (2) furnishers, which provide information about consumers to 

consumer reporting agencies. See CFPB, Annual report of credit and 

consumer reporting complaints 5 (Jan. 2022), 

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_fcra-611-

e_report_2022-01.pdf. The three largest consumer reporting agencies are 

Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. Id. These companies maintain files on 

over 200 million Americans. Id. More than 15,000 furnishers provide these 

companies information about consumers. Id. at 5–6. 

The reports compiled by these companies are used to make decisions 

that affect every facet of consumers’ lives. Lenders use credit reports, also 

referred to as consumer reports,1 when determining whether to extend 

credit and on what terms. Id. at 5. Landlords use these reports when 

1 The term “credit report” is used throughout this brief to have the same 

meaning as the term “consumer report” as defined at 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d). 

3 
 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 11 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

deciding whether to rent housing to tenants. Id. And, employers use these 

reports to determine whether a job applicant should be hired. Id. Given 

how important these decisions are to consumers, it is critical that the 

information contained in credit reports be correct and that consumers can 

identify and dispute any inaccuracies. 

However, credit reports frequently contain errors. By one estimate, 

one in five Americans has a verified error on at least one credit report. See 

FTC, Report to Congress Under Section 319 of the Fair and Accurate 

Credit Transactions Act of 2003 i-ii (Jan. 2015), 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/section-319-fairaccurate-credit-transactions-act-2003-sixth-interim-final-report-federaltrade/150121factareport.pdf; see also Liane Fiano, CFPB, Common errors 

people find on their credit report—and how to get them fixed (Feb. 5, 

2019), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/common-errorscredit-report-and-how-get-them-fixed/. Another study found that over 34% 

of consumers were able to identify at least one error in their credit reports. 

See Syed Ejaz, Consumer Reports, A Broken System: How the Credit 

Reporting System Fails Consumers and What to Do About It 4 (June 10, 

2021), https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp4 
 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 12 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

content/uploads/2021/06/A-Broken-System-How-the-Credit-ReportingSystem-Fails-Consumers-and-What-to-Do-About-It.pdf. 

Given this error rate, it is unsurprising that consumers frequently 

complain about the consumer credit reporting system. The CFPB receives 

hundreds of thousands of complaints about the consumer credit reporting 

industry every year. See CFPB, Consumer Response Annual Report 11 

(Mar. 2022), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_2021-

consumer-response-annual-report_2022-03.pdf. In 2021, over 70% of the 

complaints consumers submitted to the CFPB related to credit reporting. 

Id. That year, consumers submitted over 700,000 complaints to the CFPB 

related to credit reporting, more than every other industry combined. Id. 

The number of complaints the Bureau receives related to credit reporting is 

also dramatically increasing. The 700,000 credit-reporting complaints 

submitted to the Bureau in 2021 reflected a 122% increase over the previous 

year. Id. 

B. The FCRA 

The FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., enacted in 1970, created a 

regulatory framework governing consumer credit reporting. The statute 

“was crafted to protect consumers from the transmission of inaccurate 

information about them, and to establish credit reporting practices that 

5 
 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 13 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

utilize accurate, relevant, and current information in a confidential and 

responsible manner.” Seamans v. Temple Univ., 744 F.3d 853, 860 (3d Cir. 

2014) (quoting Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688, 706 (3d Cir. 

2010)). Consumer reporting agencies “collect consumer credit data from 

‘furnishers,’ such as banks and other lenders, and organize that material 

into individualized credit reports, which are used by commercial entities to 

assess a particular consumer’s creditworthiness.” Id. The “FCRA imposes a 

variety of obligations on both furnishers and [consumer reporting 

agencies],” id., including the obligation, under certain circumstances, to 

investigate disputes submitted by consumers. 

The FCRA provides two avenues through which consumers can 

dispute the accuracy or completeness of the information in their credit 

reports. First, a consumer may provide notice of the dispute to the person 

or entity that furnished the incorrect or incomplete information to the 

consumer reporting agency. This is known as a “direct dispute.” See CFPB, 

Supervisory Highlights Consumer Reporting Special Edition 4 (Dec. 

2019), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_supervisoryhighlights_issue-20_122019.pdf. Second, the consumer may provide notice 

of the dispute to the consumer reporting agency. This is known as an 

“indirect dispute.” Id. 

6 
 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 14 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

1. Direct Disputes 

Section 1681s-2(a)(8) of the FCRA governs the duties of furnishers 

upon receipt of a direct dispute from a consumer. After receiving notice 

that a consumer disputes the accuracy of the information a furnisher 

provided to a consumer reporting agency, the furnisher is required to: (1) 

investigate the disputed information, (2) review all relevant information 

provided by the consumer, (3) complete the investigation and report the 

results to the consumer, generally within thirty days, and (4) if the 

investigation finds that the information reported was inaccurate, promptly 

notify each consumer reporting agency to which the information was 

furnished. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(E)(i)-(iv); see also 12 C.F.R. § 

1022.43(e)(1)-(4). 

However, the furnisher is not required to satisfy these obligations if it 

“reasonably determines that the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant,” 

including because the consumer failed “to provide sufficient information to 

investigate the disputed information” or the dispute is “substantially the 

same” as a dispute already investigated. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(F)(i); see 

also 12 C.F.R. § 1022.43(f)(1). If the furnisher determines that the dispute is 

frivolous or irrelevant, it must promptly notify the consumer and the notice 

must include the reason for the determination and identify any additional 

7 
 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 15 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

information necessary to investigate the disputed information. 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1681s-2(a)(8)(F)(ii)-(iii); see also 12 C.F.R. § 1022.43(f)(2)-(3). 

2. Indirect Disputes 

Section 1681i of the FCRA governs the duties of consumer reporting 

agencies upon receipt of an indirect dispute from a consumer. When a 

consumer notifies a consumer reporting agency that she disputes the 

accuracy or completeness of the information in her consumer file, the 

agency has two principal obligations. First, the agency is required to 

provide notice of the dispute to the furnisher that provided the disputed 

information within five days of receiving the dispute. 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1681i(a)(2)(A). The notice to the furnisher must include “all relevant 

information regarding the dispute that the agency has received from the 

consumer.” Id. Second, the agency must “conduct a reasonable 

reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is 

inaccurate.” Id. § 1681i(a)(1)(A). The investigation generally must be 

complete within thirty days, id., and, upon its completion, the consumer 

reporting agency is required, among other responsibilities, to delete any 

information that could not be verified from the consumer’s file, id. 

§ 1681i(a)(5)(A), and notify the consumer in writing of the results of the 

investigation, id. § 1681i(a)(6). 

8 
 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 16 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

However, the consumer reporting agency is not required to satisfy 

either of these obligations “if the agency reasonably determines that the 

dispute by the consumer is frivolous or irrelevant, including by a reason of 

a failure by a consumer to provide sufficient information to investigate the 

disputed information.” Id. § 1681i(a)(3)(A). If the agency determines that a 

dispute is frivolous or irrelevant, it must notify the consumer and provide 

the reasons for the determination and identify any information that is 

needed to investigate the dispute. Id. § 1681i(a)(3)(B)-(C). 

Section 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA governs the duties of furnishers upon 

receipt of notice of an indirect dispute from a consumer reporting agency. 

After receiving notice pursuant to Section 1681i that a consumer has 

disputed the completeness or accuracy of information that a furnisher 

provided to a consumer reporting agency, the furnisher is required to: 

(1) investigate the disputed information, (2) review all relevant information 

provided by the consumer reporting agency, (3) report the results of the 

investigation to the consumer reporting agency, (4) if the investigation 

finds the disputed information is incomplete or inaccurate, notify all other 

consumer reporting agencies that were furnished the information, and 

(5) modify, delete, or permanently block reporting of any disputed 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 17 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

information that is found to be inaccurate, incomplete, or that cannot be 

verified. Id. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(A)-(E). 

C. Facts 

Stefan Ingram, the Plaintiff and Appellant in this case, believes he 

was the victim of identity theft.2 He alleges that a Comcast account was 

opened in his name, without his authorization, for service at a Philadelphia 

address where he has never lived. According to Ingram, he first learned of 

the account when he noticed it was listed as delinquent on his credit report. 

After learning of the account, Ingram filed a direct dispute with 

Comcast. On October 19, 2017, his lawyer sent a letter to Comcast advising 

the company that the account in Ingram’s name was fraudulent. The letter 

requested that Comcast investigate the account’s authenticity and report to 

the consumer reporting agencies that the account was disputed. Comcast 

responded and requested additional documentation including an affidavit 

and a police report. Ingram never submitted the requested documents, and 

Comcast ultimately did not find that the account was opened due to fraud. 

Comcast subsequently referred the delinquent account to Waypoint 

2 The description of the facts provided here is based on the district court’s 

account of those facts in its summary judgment order. See Ingram v. 

Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 18-cv-3776, 2021 WL 2681275, at *1–6 (E.D. 

Pa. June 30, 2021). 

10 
 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 18 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

Resource Group LLC (“Waypoint”), the Defendant and Appellee in this 

case, for collections. 

Next, Ingram filed an indirect dispute with Experian. After noticing 

that the allegedly fraudulent account remained on his credit report, Ingram 

had his lawyer dispute the account using Experian’s website. The indirect 

dispute was submitted to Experian on June 29, 2018. The dispute stated, 

“THIS IS NOT MY ACCOUNT. PLEASE REMOVE THIS FROM MY 

CREDIT.” On July 16, 2018, Waypoint received the dispute from Experian. 

In response, Waypoint updated Ingram’s address in its system and 

confirmed that the account had his correct name and Social Security 

number. Because the dispute did not include the code for fraud, Waypoint 

did not take any additional steps to verify the authenticity of the account.3 

However, Waypoint’s system did automatically mark the account with the 

code “XB,” which indicates that the account information is disputed and an 

investigation of the dispute is in progress by the furnisher. As a result, the 

3 Consumer reporting agencies and furnishers communicate about 

disputes using standardized codes. See generally CFPB, Key Dimensions 

and Processes in the U.S. Credit Reporting System: A Review of How the 

Nation’s Largest Credit Bureau’s Manage Consumer Data (Dec. 2012), 

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201212_cfpb_credit-reporting-whitepaper.pdf. 

11 
 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 19 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

Waypoint account was marked as disputed on Ingram’s Experian credit 

report. 

Finally, Ingram filed a second indirect dispute with Experian, which 

was again forwarded to Waypoint. The second indirect dispute noted that 

the account in Ingram’s name was the subject of litigation, that Ingram 

believed the account was fraudulent, and that he had obtained a police 

report. At this point, Waypoint removed the account from Ingram’s credit 

report and ceased collections on the account. 

D. Procedural History 

On September 5, 2018, Ingram filed suit against Defendants 

Waypoint, Experian, Equifax, and Comcast asserting claims under the 

FCRA. The complaint also asserts claims, against all the Defendants, under 

the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as well as claims for defamation 

against Experian and Equifax and a claim under the Pennsylvania 

Consumer Protection Law against Comcast. All Defendants other than 

Waypoint settled. 

On May 7, 2020, Waypoint moved for summary judgment. On June 

30, 2021, the district court granted summary judgment on all remaining 

claims to Waypoint. The district court rejected Ingram’s FCRA claim 

because he failed to satisfy his “burden of coming forward with evidence 

12 
 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 20 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

showing that he submitted a bona fide dispute.” Ingram v. Experian Info. 

Sols., Inc., No. 18-cv-3776, 2021 WL 2681275, at *7 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 

2021). The court explained that this requirement “is inherent in the first 

element of an FCRA claim, which requires that a consumer give notification 

of a dispute.” Id. at *5. 

The court determined that the indirect dispute Ingram filed with 

Experian was “frivolous,” and thus not “bona fide,” by applying the 

statutory provisions that apply to direct disputes: First, it held that Ingram 

had “not satisfied the requirements” in Section 1681s-2(a) pertaining to 

what information a consumer must submit with a direct dispute “because 

he did not submit ‘all supporting documentation or other information 

reasonably required to substantiate the basis of the dispute.’” Id. at *7 

(citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(D)(iii)). Second, it held that Ingram’s 

“request for an investigation may be deemed frivolous” under the provision 

in Section 1681s-2(a) that exempts furnishers from investigating certain 

direct disputes “because he failed to provide sufficient information upon 

which Waypoint could investigate.” Id. (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681s2(a)(8)(F)(i)(I)). 

On July 30, 2021, Ingram filed this appeal. 

13 
 

 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 21 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 

Under the FCRA’s indirect dispute provisions, when a consumer 

reporting agency notifies a furnisher that a consumer has disputed 

information in her credit report, the furnisher is required to conduct an 

investigation. There are no exceptions to this rule to be found in the 

statutory text. The district court, however, found an implicit exception for 

frivolous disputes. It held that the FCRA requirement that furnishers 

investigate indirect disputes applies only to so-called “bona fide disputes.” 

This Court should reject this atextual, judge-made exception to furnisher 

liability under the FCRA for three reasons. 

First, the FCRA means what it says. There is nothing in the text of the 

statute that suggests a furnisher can choose not to investigate disputes if it 

deems them to be not “bona fide.” The statutory text is unambiguous: 

furnishers must investigate all indirect disputes. Had Congress wished to 

create an exception for frivolous disputes, it knew how to do so. In two 

parts of the FCRA (those governing consumer reporting agencies’ 

obligations to investigate indirect disputes and furnishers’ obligations to 

investigate direct disputes), Congress did exactly that. But Congress 

intentionally chose not to include a similar exception to furnishers’ 

obligations to investigate indirect disputes. 

14 
 

 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 22 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

Second, consumers are entitled to notice of the outcome of their 

disputes and an opportunity to cure any deficiencies. The district court’s 

holding would circumvent those requirements, leaving consumers in the 

dark. Where the FCRA allows disputes to be rejected as frivolous—such as 

when consumer reporting agencies reject frivolous indirect disputes or 

when furnishers reject frivolous direct disputes—it mandates that notice 

must promptly be provided to the consumer that the dispute was deemed 

frivolous and the consumer must be advised of the basis for that 

determination. There is no similar requirement for indirect disputes 

referred to a furnisher. Thus, under the district court’s interpretation, a 

consumer may not be aware that a furnisher has deemed his or her indirect 

dispute frivolous. This interpretation is inconsistent with the statutory 

scheme read as a harmonious whole. And it undercuts a central remedial 

purpose of the FCRA: to ensure consumers are able to dispute and correct 

inaccurate information in their credit reports. 

Third, a judge-made exception is unnecessary because the statutory 

scheme already protects furnishers from having to investigate frivolous 

indirect disputes in other ways. For one, the statute charges consumer 

reporting agencies with determining whether a dispute is frivolous in the 

first instance, before forwarding it to the furnisher. Multiple other federal 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 23 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

courts of appeals have acknowledged that the FCRA envisions consumer 

reporting agencies serving as the filtering mechanism for frivolous indirect 

disputes. So should this Court. 

Moreover, the FCRA provides furnishers an additional layer of 

protection insofar that it requires them only to conduct a reasonable 

investigation. What constitutes a reasonable investigation is, in part, a 

function of how much information and documentation the consumer 

provides. But whether a furnisher conducted a reasonable investigation is a 

fact-intensive inquiry that should almost always be resolved at trial. 

ARGUMENT 

I. When a consumer reporting agency forwards a dispute to a 

furnisher, the furnisher is required to conduct an 

investigation. 

The text of the FCRA requires furnishers to investigate any dispute 

forwarded to them by a consumer reporting agency. Nothing in the text of 

the statute suggests that a furnisher may evade its obligation to investigate 

an indirect dispute simply because it deems the dispute frivolous or 

inadequately supported. 

A. The statutory text is unambiguous. 

To begin, the plain meaning of the statutory text requires furnishers 

to investigate all indirect disputes. Section 1681s-2(b) provides that “[a]fter 

receiving notice” from a consumer reporting agency “of a dispute with 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 24 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a 

[furnisher] to a consumer reporting agency, the [furnisher] shall ... conduct 

an investigation with respect to the disputed information.” 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1681s-2(b)(1)(A) (emphases added). This language does not afford 

furnishers any discretion to determine whether to conduct an investigation. 

See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1351 (2018) (“This directive is 

both mandatory and comprehensive. The word ‘shall’ generally imposes a 

nondiscretionary duty. And the word ‘any’ naturally carries an ‘expansive 

meaning.’” (quoting United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1, 5 (1997) and 

citing Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 

35 (1998))). And there is no other language in the FCRA’s indirect dispute 

provisions that provides a furnisher the right to decline to investigate a 

dispute that it has determined to be frivolous. 

The statutory text is unambiguous and, therefore, conclusive: “It is 

axiomatic that statutory interpretation begins with the language of the 

statute itself ... [I]f the statutory language is unambiguous, the plain 

meaning of the words ordinarily is regarded as conclusive.” Gov’t of Virgin 

Islands v. Knight, 989 F.2d 619, 633 (3d Cir. 1993) (citing Pennsylvania 

Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552, 557–58 (1990) and 

Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 25 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

(1980)); see also In re Am. Pad & Paper Co., 478 F.3d 546, 554 (3d Cir. 

2007) (“Congress says in a statute what it means and means in a statute 

what it says.” (quoting Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters 

Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1, 6 (2000))). 

B. If Congress intended to create an exception for 

frivolous disputes, it would have said so. 

Further, had Congress intended to allow furnishers to decline to 

investigate disputes they determine to be frivolous, it knew how to say so. 

For one, the FCRA expressly states that if a consumer reporting agency 

“reasonably determines that [a] dispute ... is frivolous or irrelevant” it is not 

required to investigate or to forward the indirect dispute to the furnisher. 15 

U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(3)(A). Similarly, when a furnisher receives a direct dispute 

(that is, a dispute received directly from the consumer), the FCRA clearly 

provides that the furnisher is not required to investigate so long as it 

“reasonably determines that the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant.” Id. 

§ 1681s-2(a)(8)(F)(i). But this language is nowhere to be found in the 

FCRA’s indirect dispute provisions. 

This Court must “presume that Congress acts intentionally and 

purposely when it includes particular language in one section of a statute 

but omits it in another.” Intel Corp. Inv. Pol’y Comm. v. Sulyma, 140 S. Ct. 

768, 777 (2020) (quoting BFP v. Resol. Tr. Corp., 511 U.S. 531, 537 (1994)) 

18 
 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 26 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

(alteration adopted); see also Aristy-Rosa v. Att’y Gen. United States, 994 

F.3d 112, 115–16 (3d Cir. 2021) (same). Here, Congress expressly provided 

consumer reporting agencies the authority to assess whether an indirect 

dispute is frivolous or irrelevant, and it expressly provided furnishers the 

authority to assess whether a direct dispute is frivolous or irrelevant. Had 

Congress also intended to give furnishers the authority to assess whether an 

indirect dispute is frivolous or irrelevant, “it presumably would have done 

so expressly.” Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983). 

The district court’s reasoning is erroneous for the same reason. It 

held that “[t]he bona fide dispute requirement is inherent in the first 

element of an FCRA claim, which requires that a consumer give notification 

of a dispute.” Ingram, 2021 WL 2681275, at *5 (emphasis added). In other 

words: even though nothing in the statutory text says that furnishers are 

required only to investigate bona fide (i.e., non-frivolous) disputes, 

Congress implied as much. But there is no reason to think that Congress 

would have impliedly created an exception for frivolous disputes when 

elsewhere in the statute it did so expressly. See Aristy-Rosa, 994 F.3d at 115 

(rejecting the argument that Congress “implied” in one part of a statute 

what it said outright in another). 

19 
 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 27 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

Likewise, the district court’s reliance on statutory language governing 

direct disputes is unpersuasive. The court cites the frivolousness exception 

in Section 1681s-2(a), which governs direct disputes, to support its 

conclusion that a similar, albeit implied, exception should be read into 

Section 1681s-2(b), which governs indirect disputes. E.g., Ingram, 2021 

WL 2681275, at *6 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(F)(i)). The two district 

court cases relied on by the district court similarly import the frivolousness 

exception from the part of the statute governing direct disputes into the 

part of the statute governing indirect disputes. See Palouian v. FIA Card 

Servs., No. 13-cv-0293, 2013 WL 1827615, at *3 (E.D. Pa. May 1, 2013) 

(citing the exception in Section 1681s-2(a)(8)(F) to conclude that 

“furnisher[s] cannot be liable to the consumer for the failure to investigate 

the completeness or accuracy of information under § 1681s-2(b)”); Noel v. 

First Premier Bank, No. 3:12-cv-50, 2012 WL 832992, at *9 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 

12, 2012) (“[I]f a dispute is determined to be frivolous or irrelevant under 

§ 1681s-2(a)(8)(F) ... the furnisher is not subject to liability under § 1681s2(b).”). 

But the presence of an exception in one part of a statute is not the 

basis to read an exception into another part of the statute. To the contrary, 

“[w]hen Congress provides exceptions in a statute, it does not follow that 

20 
 

 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 28 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

courts have authority to create others.” United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 

53, 58 (2000). Rather, “[t]he proper inference ... is that Congress 

considered the issue of exceptions and, in the end, limited the statute to the 

ones set forth.” Id. 

II. Consumers are entitled to notice of the outcome of their 

disputes and an opportunity to cure. 

The district court’s holding would also undercut an important 

principle underlying the FCRA: consumers are entitled to notice of the 

outcome of their disputes and an opportunity to cure. While the FCRA 

provides consumers multiple avenues to dispute information in their credit 

reports, a central tenet of the statute is that consumers are entitled to notice 

of the outcome of their dispute. The district court’s holding would risk 

opening a loophole in this careful statutory scheme, leading to consumer 

disputes potentially disappearing into a proverbial “black hole,” with their 

outcome unknown to the consumer. 

If a consumer submits an indirect dispute to a consumer reporting 

agency and the consumer reporting agency determines it is frivolous, the 

agency must “notify the consumer of such determination not later than 5 

business days after making such determination.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(3)(A). 

The notice must include “the reasons for the determination” and identify 

“any information required to investigate the disputed information.” Id. 

21 
 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 29 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

§ 1681i(a)(3)(C). Similarly, if no frivolousness determination is made and 

the consumer reporting agency investigates the dispute, it must “provide 

written notice to a consumer of the results of [the] reinvestigation ... not 

later than 5 business days after the completion of the reinvestigation.” Id. 

§ 1681i(a)(6)(A). The notice must include, among other information, “a 

statement that the reinvestigation is completed” and a statement “that the 

consumer has the right to add a statement to the consumer’s file disputing 

the accuracy or completeness of the investigation.” Id. § 1681i(a)(6)(B). 

So too, if a consumer submits a direct dispute to a furnisher and the 

furnisher determines the dispute is frivolous, it must promptly “notify the 

consumer of such determination.” Id. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(F)(ii). The notice 

must include “the reasons for the determination” and identify “any 

information required to investigate the disputed information.” Id. § 1681s2(a)(8)(F)(iii). If, on the other hand, the furnisher does not determine the 

dispute is frivolous and proceeds to investigate, it must “report the results 

of the investigation to the consumer.” Id. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(E)(iii). And, when 

a furnisher investigates an indirect dispute, it is required to “report the 

results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency,” id. § 1681s2(b)(1)(C), which is in turn required to report the results to the consumer, 

id. § 1681i(a)(6)(A). 

22 
Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 30 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

But the statute has no provision clearly requiring furnishers to notify 

anyone if, as happened here, they decline to investigate an indirect dispute 

because they have deemed it frivolous—precisely because, as discussed 

above, the statute does not give furnishers discretion as to whether to 

investigate a dispute referred by a consumer reporting agency. The 

furnisher simply lacks any role in determining whether an indirect dispute 

that has been forwarded to it by a consumer reporting agency is frivolous. 

Thus, the district court’s interpretation, if affirmed, would risk creating a 

singular exception to the rule that a consumer is entitled to notice of the 

outcome of her dispute. Under this interpretation, if a consumer submits an 

indirect dispute and the furnisher determines that the dispute is frivolous, 

the consumer may never receive any notice of that determination. Without 

being provided notice that the furnisher determined her dispute to be 

frivolous and the basis for that determination, consumers will have no way 

to know that an investigation was never conducted and no way to know 

what additional information may have been needed. Without this 

information, consumers may be unable to cure any deficiencies and, as a 

result, their disputes may go uninvestigated and, ultimately, erroneous 

information in their credit reports may go uncorrected. 

23 
 

 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 31 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

This Court should not endorse that outcome for two reasons. First, it 

is inconsistent with the statutory scheme, which in every other regard 

ensures consumers are advised of the outcome of their disputes and, where 

a dispute is determined to be frivolous, notice of why and how to cure. See 

Argueta-Orellana v. Att’y Gen. United States, 35 F.4th 144, 148 (3d Cir. 

2022) (“We must therefore interpret the statute as a symmetrical and 

coherent regulatory scheme and fit, if possible, all parts into a harmonious 

whole.” (cleaned up)). Second, it denies consumers an important protection 

afforded by the FCRA and thus undercuts its remedial purposes. See 

Cortez, 617 F.3d at 706 (explaining that the FCRA was enacted, in part, to 

ensure that consumers are able to dispute and correct inaccurate 

information, and that “any interpretation of this remedial statute” should 

reflect those “consumer-oriented objectives” (cleaned up)). 

III. The FCRA already protects furnishers from frivolous 

disputes. 

Finally, the statutory scheme already protects furnishers from the 

burden of investigating frivolous or unsupported indirect disputes. In 

crafting the FCRA, Congress protected furnishers by allowing consumer 

reporting agencies to determine whether a dispute is frivolous in the first 

instance before forwarding the dispute along to the furnisher. Generally, 

when a consumer reporting agency receives notice of a dispute from a 

24 
 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 32 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

consumer, the agency is required to relay the dispute to the furnisher 

within five days. See id. § 1681i(a)(2)(A). However, there is an exception to 

this rule. The agency is not required to forward the dispute to the furnisher 

if it “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.” Id. § 1681i(a)(3)(A). 

In that case, its only obligation is to notify the consumer that the dispute 

has been deemed frivolous and the basis for that determination. Id. § 

1681i(a)(3)(B)-(C). 

The FCRA envisions consumer reporting agencies “playing the role of 

a ‘gatekeeper.’” SimmsParris v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 652 F.3d 355, 359 

(3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Chiang v. MBNA, 620 F.3d 30, 30 (1st Cir. 2010)). 

Other federal courts of appeals have recognized the role that consumer 

reporting agencies play in shielding furnishers from frivolous disputes. For 

instance, in Scott v. First Southern National Bank, the Sixth Circuit 

explained that “the FCRA protects both consumers and furnishers.” 936 

F.3d 509, 518 (6th Cir. 2019). The FCRA does not include a private cause of 

action against furnishers for violating the provisions of the FCRA governing 

direct disputes. Id. at 517. That means “consumers may step in to enforce 

their rights [against a furnisher] only after [the] furnisher has received 

25 
 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 33 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

proper notice of a dispute from a credit reporting agency.” Id. at 517 

(quoting Boggio v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 696 F.3d 611, 615–16 (6th Cir. 

2012)) (alteration adopted). Accordingly, 

[o]ne way that the FCRA protects furnishers is by requiring that 

a consumer file a dispute with a consumer reporting agency, and 

that the consumer reporting agency screen the complaint and 

provide notice of the dispute to a furnisher if warranted, before 

the consumer may assert a private right of action against the 

furnisher. 

Id. at 518; see also Boggio, 696 F.3d at 616 (“Inasmuch as [agencies] need 

not forward frivolous disputes along to furnishers ... this statutory 

framework provides consumers with a private remedy against negligent or 

willful misconduct by a furnisher, while it simultaneously protects 

furnishers from answering frivolous consumer disputes.”). 

Similarly, in Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation, the 

Ninth Circuit recognized that Congress created a “filtering mechanism” to 

protect furnishers from frivolous disputes. 282 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 

2002). That court “inferred from the structure of the statute that Congress 

did not want furnishers of credit information exposed to suit by any and 

every consumer dissatisfied with the credit information furnished.” Id. 

Accordingly, before a “disputatious consumer” can bring suit against a 

furnisher, the consumer must first notify the consumer reporting agency, 

26 
 

 

 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 34 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

and the agency must then determine whether “the dispute by the consumer 

is frivolous or irrelevant.” Id. (quotation omitted). 

Thus, the statutory scheme charges consumer reporting agencies with 

filtering frivolous disputes in the first instance, and it does so intentionally, 

in order to protect furnishers. Having put “this filter in place,” and having 

provided an “opportunity for the furnisher to save itself from liability by 

taking the steps required by § 1681s-2(b), Congress put no limit on private 

enforcement under §§ 1681n & o.” Id. The district court’s holding that a 

furnisher’s liability under section 1681s-2(b) is impliedly limited to 

instances in which the underlying dispute is bona fide, therefore, is 

contrary to the scheme designed by Congress. 

Furnishers also have a final layer of protection: they are not required 

to conduct an unreasonably onerous investigation into a conclusory or 

unsubstantiated dispute. See Seamans, 744 F.3d at 864 (“[A] furnisher’s 

post-dispute investigation into a consumer’s complaint must be 

‘reasonable.’” (quoting SimmsParris, 652 F.3d at 359)). Courts have held 

that determining what such an investigation looks like is a fact-intensive 

inquiry that requires “weighing ‘the cost of verifying the accuracy of the 

information versus the possible harm of reporting inaccurate information.’” 

Id. at 865 (quoting Johnson v. MBNA Am. Bank, NA, 357 F.3d 426, 432–33 

27 
 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 35 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

(4th Cir. 2004)). “[T]he content of the notice of dispute sent by the 

[consumer reporting agency] to the furnisher” is “an important factor in 

assessing the reasonableness of a furnisher’s investigation.” Id. It follows 

that “where a given notice contains only scant or vague allegations of 

inaccuracy, a more limited investigation may be warranted.” Id. 

Whether a furnisher has satisfied its obligation to conduct a 

reasonable investigation is a fact-intensive question. The district court 

correctly acknowledged that “genuine issues of material fact would likely 

preclude summary judgment on” Waypoint’s argument that its 

“investigation ... when considered in light of the scant information 

provided, was reasonable.” Ingram, 2021 WL 2681275, at *8 n.3. That is 

because “the issue of whether a furnisher’s post-dispute investigation was 

reasonable is ‘normally a question for trial.’” Id. (quoting Seamans, 744 

F.3d at 864–65). 

CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, the judgment of the district court as it pertains to 

the plaintiff’s FCRA claims should be reversed. 

28 
 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 36 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

September 13, 2022 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Ryan Cooper 

Seth Frotman 

General Counsel 

Steven Y. Bressler 

Acting Deputy General Counsel 

Laura Hussain 

Assistant General Counsel 

Ryan Cooper 

Counsel 

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 

BUREAU 

1700 G Street NW 

Washington, DC 20552 

(202) 702-7541 

ryan.cooper@cfpb.gov 

Anisha S. Dasgupta 

General Counsel 

Joel Marcus 

Deputy General Counsel 

Imad D. Abyad 

Attorney 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

(202) 326-3579 

iabyad@ftc.gov 

29 
 

 

 

 

Case: 21-2430 Document: 30 Page: 37 Date Filed: 09/13/2022 

COMBINED CERTIFICATIONS 

1. Government counsel are not required to be members of the bar 

of this Court. 

2. This brief complies with the requirements of Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 32(a)(5) and (6) because it has been prepared in 14-

point Georgia, a proportionally spaced font. 

3. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Federal 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a)(5) because it contains 5,671 words, 

excluding exempt material, according to the count of Microsoft Word. 

4. On September 13, 2022, I electronically filed this brief using the 

CM/ECF system. The participants in this appeal are registered CM/ECF 

users and will be served through the CM/ECF system. 

5. The text of the electronic version of this document is identical to 

the text of the paper copies that will be provided. 

6. This document has been scanned for viruses using 

CylancePROTECT (Version 2.1574.39), software that continuously scans for 

viruses, and no virus has been detected. 

September 13, 2022 /s/ Ryan Cooper 

Ryan Cooper