USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 1 of 37 

Nos. 22-11014, 22-11734 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

Tanethia Holden, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Florida 

Hon. Carlos E. Mendoza 

Case No. 6:19-cv-2373 

Mark Mayer, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Florida 

Hon. Gregory A. Presnell 

Case No. 6:20-cv-2283 

Brief of Amici Curiae 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and 

Federal Trade Commission in Support of 

Plaintiffs-Appellants and Reversal 
 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 

Anisha S. Dasgupta 

General Counsel 

Joel Marcus 

Deputy General Counsel 

Imad D. Abyad 

Attorney 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20580 

(202) 326-3579 (Abyad) 

iabyad@ftc.gov 

Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 2 of 37 

Seth Frotman 

General Counsel 

Steven Y. Bressler 

Deputy General Counsel 

Kristin Bateman 

Acting Assistant General Counsel 

Justin M. Sandberg 

Senior Counsel 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

1700 G Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20552 

(202) 450-8786 (Sandberg) 

Justin.Sandberg@cfpb.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 3 of 37 Holden v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc., No. 22-11014; 

Mayer v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc., No. 22-11734 

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND 

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 

Pursuant to 11th Cir. Rule 26.1, counsel for amici curiae the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) certify that the following additional persons and entities 

have an interest in the outcome of these appeals: 

Abyad, Imad D., FTC 

Bateman, Kristin, CFPB 

Bedoya, Alvaro M., FTC 

Bloom, Karen S., CFPB 

Bressler, Steven Y., CFPB 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

Dahdouh, Thomas N., FTC 

Dasgupta, Anisha, FTC 

Delaney, Elizabeth A., FTC (former) 

Estrada, Danielle, FTC 

Frant, Nina, FTC 

Frotman, Seth, CFPB 

Henderson, Juliana Gruenwald, FTC 

Hussain, Laura, CFPB (former) 

C-1 of 2 
 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 4 of 37 Holden v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc., No. 22-11014; 

Mayer v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc., No. 22-11734 

Khan, Lina M., FTC 

Kopec, Janice, FTC 

Koulousias, Amanda, FTC 

Laroia, Gaurav, FTC 

Marcus-Kurn, Joel, FTC 

Moriarty, Kevin, FTC 

Phillips, Noah, FTC (former) 

Richardson, Rashida, FTC 

Rieke, Aaron, FTC 

Sandberg, Justin M., CFPB 

Schoshinski, Robert, FTC 

Slaughter, Rebecca Kelly, FTC 

Spector, Robin, FTC 

White, Katherine, FTC 

Wilson, Christine S., FTC 

Zhao, Daniel, FTC 

C-2 of 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 5 of 37 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND 

CORPORATED DISCLOSURE STATEMENT................................... C-1 

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

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

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

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

A. The Fair Credit Reporting Act............................................... 3 

B. Factual and Procedural Background..................................... 7 

1. Mark Mayer v. HICV......................................................... 7 

2. Tanethia Holden v. HICV ................................................. 10 

Furnishers Are Required to Reasonably Investigate 

Disputes, Regardless of Whether the Disputed Inaccuracy 

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................... 12 

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

Can Be Characterized as Legal........................................................... 13 

1. The FCRA Requires a Reasonable Investigation Under 

the Circumstances .................................................................... 13 

2. Congress Did Not Exclude Disputes that Implicate 

Legal Questions ........................................................................ 16 

3. An Atextual Exception for Legal Inaccuracies Will 

Create a Loophole that Could Swallow the Reasonable 

Investigation Rule .................................................................... 23 

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 6 of 37 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases Page(s) 

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

No. 8:12-cv-03671-AW, 2013 WL 990416 (D. Md. Mar. 12, 2013)...........15 

Batterman v. BR Carroll Glenridge, LLC, 

829 F. App’x 478 (11th Cir. 2020) .........................................................9, 12 

Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs. L.L.C., 

629 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2010) .....................................................................19 

Chiang v. Verizon New Eng. Inc., 

595 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2010) ...............................................................9, 11, 21 

Chuluunbat v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 

4 F.4th 562 (7th Cir. 2021) ....................................................................... 23 

Cornock v. Trans Union L.L.C., 

638 F. Supp. 2d 158 (D.N.H. 2009) ................................................... 23, 24 

Dennis v. BEH-1, LLC, 

520 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................. 25 

Doss v. Great Lakes Educ. Loan Servs., Inc., 

No. 3:20-cv-45, 2021 WL 1206800 (E.D. Va. Mar. 30, 2021) ..................15 

Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 

584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009).....................................................4, 14, 15, 21 

Gross v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 

33 F.4th 1246 (9th Cir. 2022)..................................................17, 18, 20, 22 

Hinkle v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 

827 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2016)........................................................14, 15, 16 

Holden v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc., 

No. 6:19-cv-2373-CEM-EJK, 2022 WL 993572 (M.D. Fla. 

Feb. 28, 2022).................................................................................10, 11, 12 

Hopkins v. I.C. Sys., 

No. 18-cv-2063, 2020 WL 2557134 (E.D. Pa. May 5, 2020) ................... 25 

ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 7 of 37 

Humphrey v. Trans Union LLC, 

759 F. App’x 484 (7th Cir. 2019) ...............................................................21 

Hunt v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 

770 F. App’x 452 (11th Cir. 2019) .......................................................... 9, 11 

Johnson Enterprises of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Grp., Inc., 

162 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 1998)...................................................................17 

Johnson v. MBNA Am. Bank, N.A., 

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

Kemp v. United States, 

142 S. Ct. 1856 (2022)................................................................................16 

Losch v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, 

995 F.3d 937 (11th Cir. 2021) ........................................................... passim 

Markosyan v. Hunter Warfield, Inc., 

No. 17-cv-5400, 2018 WL 2718089 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2018)..................20 

Mayer v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc., 

No. 6:20-cv-2283-GAP-EJK (M.D. Fla. April 21, 2022).................. passim 

Milgram v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 

No. 22-10250 (11th Cir. appeal docketed Jan. 19, 2022)......................... 18 

Nelson v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 

No. 3:14-cv-00419-HZ, 2014 WL 2866841 (D. Or. June 23, 2014)......... 25 

Sessa v. Linear Motors, LLC, 

576 F. Supp. 3d 1 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) ............................................................ 24 

Solus v. Regions Bank, 

No. 1:19-CV-2650-CC-JKL, 2020 WL 4048062 (N.D. Ga. 

July 17, 2020).............................................................................................19 

Typpi v. PNC Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 

No. 13-CV-3930, 2014 WL 296035 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2014)....................15 

Statutes 

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

iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 8 of 37 

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

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

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

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

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

15 U.S.C. § 1681i...................................................................................... 19, 20 

15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)....................................................................................5, 14 

15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A) ..........................................................................6, 16 

15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(2)...........................................................................5, 6, 16 

15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(A)..........................................................................6, 16 

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

15 U.S.C. § 1681i(b)-(c)................................................................................... 6 

15 U.S.C. § 1681n ............................................................................................ 6 

15 U.S.C. § 1681o............................................................................................. 6 

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) ............................................................................ 2, 5 

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(A) ......................................................................2, 13 

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

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

Rules 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) ......................................................16 

iv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 9 of 37 

Regulations 

12 C.F.R. § 1022.41(a)................................................................................... 22 

12 C.F.R. § 1022.42(a) .................................................................................. 22 

12 C.F.R. § 1022.43(a) ...................................................................................17 

Other Authorities 

Brief of Amici Curiae, Sessa v. Linear Motors, LLC, 

No. 22-87 (2d Cir. May 5, 2022) ..............................................................20 

Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Annual Report of Credit and Consumer 

Reporting Complaints (Jan. 2022), 

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

e_report_2022-01.pdf ....................................................................... 3, 6, 7 

Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Key Dimensions and Processes in the U.S. 

Credit Reporting System (2012), https://files.consumerfinance.gov 

/f/201212_cfpb_credit-reporting-white-paper.pdf............................... 3, 4 

Fed. Trade. Comm’n, 40 Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting 

Act: An FTC Staff Report with Summary of Interpretations (2011), 

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/40-yearsexperience-fair-credit-reporting-act-ftc-staff-report-summaryinterpretations/110720fcrareport.pdf.......................................................14 

Holiday Inn Club Vacations, Our Team and Our Values, 

https://hicv.com/our-team ........................................................................ 7 

Holiday Inn Club Vacations, Our Purpose, https://hicv.com ....................... 7 

S. Rep. No. 91-517 (1969) ............................................................................... 4 

v 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 10 of 37 

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE 

To ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, the Fair Credit 

Reporting Act (FCRA or the Act), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., requires 

consumer reporting agencies (CRAs)—like Experian Information Solutions, 

Inc. (Experian), TransUnion, and Equifax—and entities that furnish 

information to CRAs (furnishers)—often, but not always, creditors—to 

follow various requirements when they compile and disseminate personal 

information about individuals. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

(CFPB or Bureau) 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 Act’s requirements. 

Id. § 1681s(a)–(c). 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) has been 

charged by Congress with the mission to protect consumers from deceptive 

or unfair trade practices. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). As part of that mission, the 

Commission has long played a key role in the implementation, 

enforcement, and interpretation of the FCRA. The FTC enforces the FCRA 

through Section 5 of the FTC Act. Congress deemed a violation of the FCRA 

to “constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice in commerce, in 

violation of section 5(a) of the [FTC Act].” 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(a). And the 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 11 of 37 

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 FCRA requires a furnisher who is notified by a CRA of a dispute 

about information it furnished to the CRA (i.e., an indirect dispute)1 to 

“conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information.” Id. 

§ 1681s-2(b)(1)(A). This case presents a question about the scope of a 

furnisher’s duty to investigate an indirect dispute. 

The district court decisions at issue unduly narrow the scope of a 

furnisher’s obligations by holding that furnishers need not investigate 

indirect disputes involving “legal” inaccuracies. These decisions run 

counter to the purpose of the FCRA to require a reasonable investigation of 

consumer disputes and would limit consumers’ ability to obtain correction 

of potentially harmful inaccuracies on their consumer reports. This 

outcome could reduce the incentive of furnishers to resolve “legal” disputes, 

and, in turn, could increase the volume of consumer complaints about 

1 An “indirect dispute” is one where the consumer files a dispute with the 

CRA, and the CRA, in turn, notifies the furnisher of it. In contrast, a “direct 

dispute,” addressed by a different provision of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s2(a)(8), is one that the consumer files directly with the furnisher. The FCRA 

does not provide a private right of action to consumers for violations of 

furnishers’ obligation to investigate direct disputes. Id. § 1681s-2(c)(1). 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 12 of 37 

credit reporting issues2 that the Bureau receives and devotes resources to 

address. It could also limit the ability of the Bureau and the FTC to exercise 

their authorities to protect consumers. The Bureau and the FTC, therefore, 

have a substantial interest in these issues. 

STATEMENT 

A. The Fair Credit Reporting Act 

1. Information contained in consumer reports has critical effects on 

Americans’ daily lives. Consumer reports are used to evaluate consumers’ 

eligibility for loans and determine the interest rates they pay, ascertain 

their eligibility for insurance and set the premiums they pay, and assess 

their eligibility for rental housing and for checking accounts. Prospective 

employers also 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 (2012), 

2 From January to September 2021, the Bureau received over 500,000 

consumer complaints related to credit or consumer reporting. See 

Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Annual Report of Credit and Consumer 

Reporting Complaints (Jan. 2022), at 21, 

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

e_report_2022-01.pdf. 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 13 of 37 

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201212_cfpb_credit-reporting-whitepaper.pdf.3 

Given the importance of this information, Congress enacted the FCRA 

to “prevent consumers from being unjustly damaged because of inaccurate 

or arbitrary information in a credit report.” S. Rep. No. 91-517, at 1 (1969). 

2. Since its enactment, the FCRA has governed the practices of CRAs 

that collect and compile consumer information into consumer reports for 

use by credit grantors, insurance companies, employers, landlords, and 

other entities that make eligibility decisions affecting consumers. To further 

ensure that consumer reports are accurate, in 1996, Congress amended the 

FCRA to also impose “duties on the sources that provide credit information 

to CRAs, called ‘furnishers’ in the statute.” Gorman v. Wolpoff & 

Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 2009). These duties include 

requiring furnishers to investigate when consumers dispute information 

that the furnisher has given to a CRA. Under the Act, furnishers have an 

obligation to investigate potential inaccuracies in two circumstances: 

3 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 consumers request their own 

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

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

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 14 of 37 

(i) when a consumer submits an “indirect” dispute to a CRA, which must 

forward the dispute to the furnisher under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a); and (ii) 

when a consumer submits a dispute directly to the furnisher, see id. 

§ 1681s-2(a)(8) and (b). 

The Act requires a furnisher, after it receives notice of an “indirect” 

dispute from a CRA pursuant to § 1681i(a)(2), to: 

(A) [C]onduct an investigation with respect to the disputed 

information; 

(B) [R]eview all relevant information provided by the consumer 

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

(C) [R]eport the results of the investigation to the consumer 

reporting agency; 

(D) [I]f 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) [I]f an item of information disputed by a consumer is found to 

be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified after any 

reinvestigation under [§ 1681s-2(b)(1)], for purposes of 

reporting to a consumer reporting agency only, as appropriate, 

based on the result of the reinvestigation promptly – 

(i) [M]odify that item of information; 

(ii) [D]elete that item of information; or 

(iii) [P]ermanently block the reporting of that item of 

information. 

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1). 

These responsibilities are part of the FCRA’s overall framework for 

ensuring accuracy in credit reports. As is relevant here, when a consumer 

notifies a CRA that he or she disputes “the completeness or accuracy of any 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 15 of 37 

item . . . contained in a consumer’s file,” the CRA is required to “conduct a 

reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information 

is inaccurate.” Id. § 1681i(a)(1)(A). The CRA must also provide notice to the 

furnisher, id. § 1681i(a)(2), after which the furnisher is required to engage 

in the activities listed above. Id. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(A)-(E).4 A consumer may 

sue a furnisher for willful or negligent noncompliance with its obligation to 

perform an investigation under § 1681s-2(b). Id. §§ 1681n, 1681o. 

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

persist in consumer reports. Between January and September 2021, the 

Bureau received more than 500,000 complaints about credit or consumer 

reporting, and the most common issue consumers identified was incorrect 

information on a credit report. See Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Annual 

Report of Credit and Consumer Reporting Complaints (Jan. 2022), at 21, 

4 Within 30 days of receiving notice of the dispute, the CRA must record 

the status of the disputed information or modify or delete the disputed 

information, as appropriate, and promptly notify the furnisher that the 

information has been modified or deleted. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A), 

(a)(5)(A). After completing a reinvestigation, the CRA must notify the 

consumer of the results within five business days. Id. § 1681i(a)(6). If the 

CRA reinvestigation does not resolve the dispute, the consumer has the 

right to add a brief statement about the dispute that will appear or be 

summarized in all subsequent consumer reports from the CRA that contain 

the information. Id. § 1681i(b)-(c). 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 16 of 37 

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

e_report_2022-01.pdf. 

B. Factual and Procedural Background 

1. Mark Mayer v. HICV 

Plaintiff-Appellant Mark Mayer entered into a timeshare agreement 

with Defendant-Appellee Holiday Inn Club Vacations Incorporated (HICV)

5 

in 2014 for a property in Cape Canaveral, Florida.

6 Mr. Mayer made 

monthly payments for approximately three years, but ceased making 

payments in 2017. In 2019, Mr. Mayer mailed HICV letters that disputed 

the validity of, and purported to rescind, the agreement, while permitting 

HICV to retain all prior payments as liquidated damages. 

In August 2019, Mr. Mayer obtained a copy of his credit report from 

Experian. The report stated that he had an open account with HICV with a 

past-due balance. Mr. Mayer submitted letters to Experian in January, 

5 HICV is a for-profit “resort, real estate and travel company.” See 

Holiday Inn Club Vacations, Our Purpose, hicv.com. In 2017, HICV was 

named one of the fastest growing private companies in Central Florida by 

the Orlando Business Journal. See Holiday Inn Club Vacations, Our Team 

and Our Values, https://hicv.com/our-team. 

6 Unless otherwise noted, the facts in this section are derived from the 

description in the district court’s opinion. See Mayer v. Holiday Inn Club 

Vacations Inc., No. 6:20-cv-2283-GAP-EJK (M.D. Fla. April 21, 2022) 

(“Mayer Op.”). 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 17 of 37 

March, and April 2020, disputing the credit reporting. The letters stated 

that Mr. Mayer had terminated his agreement with HICV and that he owed 

no balance. After Experian communicated each dispute to HICV, HICV 

certified that the information for Mr. Mayer’s account was accurate, and 

Experian communicated this response to Mr. Mayer. 

Mr. Mayer filed this suit in December 2020, alleging that Defendant 

violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) when it verified the accuracy of his credit 

report without conducting reasonable investigations following receipt of his 

indirect disputes. HICV moved for summary judgment in October 2021, 

alleging that Mr. Mayer’s claim—that he was not contractually obligated to 

make the payments to HICV that are reported on his credit report as being 

due—“is inherently a legal dispute and is not actionable under the FCRA.” 

Mayer Op. at 5. HICV also argued that the reporting was accurate because 

the liquidation provision in the time-share agreement did not excuse Mr. 

Mayer’s obligation to continue paying. 

The district court granted HICV’s motion for summary judgment. 

Mayer Op. at 8. The court first relied on an unpublished Eleventh Circuit 

opinion and an out-of-circuit decision to find that a plaintiff “must show a 

factual inaccuracy rather than the existence of disputed legal questions to 

bring suit against a furnisher under § 1681s-2(b).” See Mayer Op. at 5 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 18 of 37 

(citing Hunt v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 770 F. App’x 452, 458 

(11th Cir. 2019), which quotes Chiang v. Verizon New Eng. Inc., 595 F.3d 

26, 38 (1st Cir. 2010)). 

The court then found that the parties’ dispute in this case—which it 

characterized as being about whether a liquidation clause in the timeshare 

contract excused Mr. Mayer’s payment obligations and therefore rendered 

inaccurate the credit reporting about an unpaid balance—was a “legal” 

contractual dispute, and “not a factual issue that would support a FCRA 

claim.” See Mayer Op. at 5. To reach its conclusion, the district court relied 

on an unpublished decision concerning a different provision of the FCRA, 

Batterman v. BR Carroll Glenridge, LLC, 829 F. App’x 478, 481 (11th Cir. 

2020), which held that a plaintiff failed to state an FCRA claim against a 

CRA because the plaintiff’s allegations about the applicability of a 

liquidated damages provision involved a legal dispute, not a factual 

inaccuracy.

7 See Mayer Op. at 5-6. 

7 The district court also considered whether the Eleventh Circuit’s 

recent decision in Losch v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, 995 F.3d 937 (11th 

Cir. 2021)—which held that where a court has clearly resolved a legal 

dispute, reporting information inconsistent with the resolution can 

constitute a “factual inaccuracy” that would support an FCRA claim against 

a CRA—“change[d] the balance here.” The district court found that cases 

construing contract provisions analogous to the liquidated damages 

provision of the timeshare agreement at issue here had reached “conflicting 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 19 of 37 

The court did not reach the question of whether HICV’s investigations 

of Mr. Mayer’s indirect disputes were reasonable. 

Plaintiff noticed this appeal on May 20, 2022. 

2. Tanethia Holden v. HICV 

Plaintiff-Appellant Tanethia Holden entered into a timeshare 

agreement with Defendant-Appellee HICV in 2016.

8 Ms. Holden made a 

down payment and the first three installment payments, but then did not 

make any additional payments. In 2017, Ms. Holden mailed letters to HICV 

that disputed the validity of, and attempted to cancel, the agreement. The 

timeshare deed was recorded in June 2017, and HICV reported to Experian 

that Ms. Holden was delinquent on her payments. 

Ms. Holden submitted letters to Experian in June, September, and 

November 2018, disputing the credit reporting. After Experian 

communicated the disputes to HICV, HICV determined there was no 

inaccuracy in the reporting. 

outcomes,” but acknowledged that, based on Losch, Mr. Mayer “might be 

able to establish a [FCRA] claim against HICV if enough courts had ruled 

against HICV’s interpretation of the contractual provision at issue.” Op. at 

6. 

8 Unless otherwise noted, the facts in this section are derived from the 

description in the district court’s opinion. See Holden v. Holiday Inn Club 

Vacations Inc., No. 6:19-cv-2373-CEM-EJK, 2022 WL 993572 (M.D. Fla. 

Feb. 28, 2022). 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 20 of 37 

Ms. Holden filed this suit in December 2019, alleging (in the only 

claim remaining) that Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) when it 

verified the accuracy of her credit report without conducting reasonable 

investigations following receipt of her indirect disputes about credit 

reporting inaccuracies. HICV moved for summary judgment as to this 

claim, and Ms. Holden moved for partial summary judgment as to whether 

HICV’s reporting was inaccurate. 

The district court granted HICV’s motion for summary judgment. 

Holden, 2022 WL 993572, at *1. Its reasoning closely tracked that of the 

district court in Mayer. Relying on the same cases as Mayer, the court first 

held that a plaintiff “‘must show a factual inaccuracy rather than the 

existence of disputed legal questions to bring suit against a furnisher under 

§ 1681s-2(b).’” See Holden, 2022 WL 993572, at *3 (quoting Hunt, 770 F. 

App’x at 458, which quotes Chiang, 595 F.3d at 38). The court also held, 

again relying on the same unpublished decision as Mayer, that the parties’ 

dispute in this case—which it characterized as a contract dispute about 

whether the relevant contract had been properly rescinded—was a “legal” 

contractual dispute, not a factual dispute that would support an FCRA 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 21 of 37 

claim.

9 See Holden, 2022 WL 993572, at *3 (citing Batterman, 829 F. 

App’x at 481). 

The court did not reach the question of whether HICV’s investigations 

of Ms. Holden’s indirect disputes were reasonable. 

Ms. Holden noticed this appeal on March 30, 2022. Her appeal was 

consolidated with Mr. Mayer’s on July 15, 2022. 

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 

The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires furnishers of information to 

consumer reporting agencies to reasonably investigate disputes regarding 

the completeness or accuracy of the information furnished. Although the 

statute does not distinguish between legal and factual disputes, the district 

court decisions conclude that a furnisher’s failure to investigate a dispute 

alleging that the information is inaccurate for a legal reason (as opposed to 

9 Like the court in Mayer, the court in Holden also considered 

whether Losch, 995 F.3d 937 changed the conclusion. The district court 

found that cases construing similar contract provisions had “interpreted the 

contractual provisions in a manner consistent with Plaintiff’s 

interpretation,” but stated that “there has not [here] been the kind of final 

resolution referenced in Losch” because one of those cases was being 

appealed and Defendant provided at least one other court order that sided 

with its contractual interpretation. Holden, 2022 WL 993572, at *3. 

Moreover, the court noted that even if the cases cited by Plaintiff resolved 

the legal dispute in this case, “they did not exist at the time that Defendant 

was investigating Plaintiff’s debt, and therefore, at the time, this issue was 

unquestionably a legal dispute and not a factual inaccuracy.” Id. 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 22 of 37 

a factual one) cannot form the basis for a claim that a furnisher has violated 

§ 1681s-2(b). These opinions are not supported by the statute, risk exposing 

consumers to more inaccurate credit reporting, conflict with the decision of 

another circuit, and undercut the remedial purpose of the FCRA. Moreover, 

separating “factual” disputes from “legal” ones is difficult to accomplish in 

practice and would allow furnishers to evade their statutory obligations by 

characterizing nearly any dispute as a “legal” one. This Court should reverse 

the district courts’ judgments and clarify that furnishers are required to, 

and can be held liable for failing to, conduct reasonable investigations of 

both legal and factual questions posed in consumer disputes. 

ARGUMENT 

Furnishers Are Required to Reasonably Investigate Disputes, 

Regardless of Whether the Disputed Inaccuracy Can Be 

Characterized as Legal 

1. The FCRA Requires a Reasonable Investigation Under 

the Circumstances 

Under the FCRA, a furnisher who receives notice of a dispute about 

the completeness or accuracy of information it provided to a CRA is 

required to “conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed 

information.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(A). While the FCRA does not 

explicitly specify the nature and extent of the “investigation” a furnisher 

must conduct under 1681s-2(b), this Court has determined that 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 23 of 37 

“‘reasonableness’ is an appropriate touchstone for evaluating investigations 

under § 1681s-2(b).”

10 Hinkle v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 827 F.3d 

1295, 1301-02 (11th Cir. 2016). Requiring a reasonable investigation, rather 

than a “cursory or sloppy review of the dispute,” comports with the FCRA’s 

goal to “protect consumers from the transmission of inaccurate information 

about them.’” Gorman, 584 F.3d at 1155, 1157. 

What constitutes a “reasonable” investigation is case specific, and the 

investigation must be “reasonable under the circumstances. It may be 

either simple or complex, depending on the nature of the dispute.” Fed. 

Trade. Comm’n, 40 Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act: 

An FTC Staff Report with Summary of Interpretations (2011), at 96, 

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/40-yearsexperience-fair-credit-reporting-act-ftc-staff-report-summaryinterpretations/110720fcrareport.pdf. A merely “superficial” inquiry will 

not suffice; a reasonable investigation “requires some degree of careful 

10 The Court reached this conclusion because the FCRA’s structure 

“suggests that the duty of a furnisher under § 1681s-2(b) is a component of 

the larger reinvestigation duty imposed by § 1681i(a) on CRAs themselves.” 

Hinkle, 827 F.3d at 1301. Since Section 1681i(a) imposes on CRAs “a duty 

. . . to make reasonable efforts to investigate and correct inaccurate or 

incomplete information brought to [their] attention by [a] consumer,” id. at 

1302 (emphasis added), furnisher investigations should likewise be 

evaluated under a reasonableness standard. Id. 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 24 of 37 

inquiry.” Johnson v. MBNA Am. Bank, N.A., 357 F.3d 426, 430 (4th Cir. 

2004); Hinkle, 827 F.3d at 1303. It must contain a “qualitative component,” 

Johnson, 357 F.3d at 430, and courts reject furnishers’ assertions that they 

satsify their obligation to investigate simply by going through the motions 

of conducting an investigation. See, e.g., Alston v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 

No. 8:12-cv-03671-AW, 2013 WL 990416, at *5 (D. Md. Mar. 12, 2013). 

While an investigation “is not necessarily unreasonable because it 

results in a substantive conclusion unfavorable to the consumer,” Gorman, 

584 F.3d at 1161, a furnisher’s continuing to erroneously report information 

after a consumer files a dispute about the accuracy of that information may 

be evidence of the unreasonableness of a furnisher’s investigation in certain 

circumstances. See, e.g., Doss v. Great Lakes Educ. Loan Servs., Inc., No. 

3:20-cv-45, 2021 WL 1206800, at *9 (E.D. Va. Mar. 30, 2021).

11 When a 

furnisher ends its investigation by reporting that the disputed information 

has been verified as accurate, “the question of whether the furnisher 

behaved reasonably will turn on whether the furnisher acquired sufficient 

evidence to support the conclusion that the information was true.” Hinkle, 

827 F.3d at 1303. In other words, the reasonableness of the investigation 

11 See also Typpi v. PNC Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, No. 13-CV-3930, 2014 WL 

296035, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2014). 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 25 of 37 

can be evaluated by how thoroughly the furnisher investigated the dispute 

(e.g., how well its conclusion is supported by the information it considered 

or reasonably could have considered). 

2. Congress Did Not Exclude Disputes that Implicate Legal 

Questions 

The FCRA specifically describes the types of indirect disputes that 

furnishers need to investigate—those that dispute “the completeness or 

accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer’s file.”12 15 

U.S.C. §§ 1681i(a)(1)(A), (a)(2), 1681s-2(b)(1). Nothing in the term 

“accuracy” suggests that Congress intended to exclude information that is 

inaccurate on account of legal issues. See generally Kemp v. United States, 

142 S. Ct. 1856, 1862 (2022) (holding that the word “mistake” in Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) encompasses both mistakes of fact and of 

law, because had the drafters “intended a narrower meaning, they ‘easily 

could have drafted language to that effect’. . . The difference between 

‘mistake of fact’ and ‘mistake of law’ was well known at the time. . . . Yet 

they chose to include ‘mistake’ unqualified.”). To the contrary, the accuracy 

and completeness of information in consumer files often turns on legal 

12 Notably, under the FCRA, a CRA is required to delete an item if it 

cannot be verified. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(A); Hinkle, 827 F.3d at 1304. 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 26 of 37 

issues, such as whether a debt is valid and who is obligated to pay it.

13 Many 

inaccuracies in consumer reports could be characterized as legal, which 

would create an exception that would swallow the rule. Consumer reports 

generally include information about an individual’s debt obligations, and 

debts are generally creatures of contract. Thus, many inaccurate 

representations pertaining to an individual’s debt obligations arguably 

could be characterized as legal inaccuracies, given that determining the 

truth or falsity of the representation could require the reading of a contract. 

Cf. Johnson Enter. of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Grp., Inc., 162 F.3d 1290, 

1329 (11th Cir. 1998) (explaining that “contract interpretation is a question 

of law”). 

This Court has an opportunity to join its sister circuit in holding that 

the FCRA does not categorically exempt disputes raising legal issues from 

the investigations that the FCRA requires of furnishers under § 1681s2(b)(1), Gross v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 33 F.4th 1246 (9th Cir. 2022), and, in 

13 Although the Bureau has not issued regulations addressing indirect 

furnisher disputes, it has issued regulations implementing the requirement 

for furnishers to conduct investigations of direct disputes concerning 

accuracy, and the Court may look to those regulations for guidance. They 

specifically require that “a furnisher must conduct a reasonable 

investigation of a direct dispute if it relates to [] [t]he consumer’s liability 

for a credit account or other debt with the furnisher,” 12 C.F.R. 

§ 1022.43(a), (a)(1), which clearly involves a legal question. 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 27 of 37 

the process, provide clarity to district courts on an important question of 

consumer finance law.

14 The district court below justified its holding in 

Mayer by noting that none of the cases cited to it “actually permit a FCRA 

claim based on a legal dispute to go forward against a furnisher.” Mayer Op. 

at 5 n.2. But in Gross, issued approximately one month after the district 

court’s decision in Mayer, the Ninth Circuit held that the “FCRA does not 

categorically exempt legal issues from the investigations that furnishers 

must conduct. The distinction between ‘legal’ and ‘factual’ issues is 

ambiguous, potentially unworkable, and could invite furnishers to evade 

their investigation obligation by construing the relevant dispute as a ‘legal’ 

one.” Gross, 33 F.4th at 1253 (quotations omitted). As the Ninth Circuit 

has recognized, the “FCRA will sometimes require furnishers [as part of 

their investigatory obligations] to investigate, and even to highlight or 

resolve, questions of legal significance.” Id. This Court should join its sister 

circuit in holding that the statute does not exclude from the investigation 

requirement disputes that could be characterized as legal. 

14 In Milgram v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 22-10250 (11th Cir. 

appeal docketed Jan. 19, 2022), this Court is also reviewing a district court 

decision that could be read to say that furnishers’ obligations to conduct 

reasonable investigations of consumer disputes do not extend to assessing 

the merits of legal questions. The Bureau filed an amicus brief in that 

matter in April 2022. 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 28 of 37 

Prior to the Ninth Circuit’s decision, some courts had drawn a 

distinction between factual and legal inaccuracies in the context of a 

different FCRA provision that does not apply to furnishers. See, e.g., Solus 

v. Regions Bank, No. 1:19-CV-2650-CC-JKL, 2020 WL 4048062, at *4 

(N.D. Ga. July 17, 2020) (“[R]easonable reinvestigation does not require 

CRAs to resolve legal disputes about the validity of the underlying debts 

they report.”); Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs. L.L.C., 629 F.3d 876, 892 

(9th Cir. 2010) (“A CRA is not required as part of its reinvestigation duties 

to provide a legal opinion on the merits.”).15 That provision, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1681i, requires CRAs to conduct “a reasonable reinvestigation” of disputes 

received from consumers regarding the accuracy or completeness of 

information in the consumer’s file. 

But even if it were proper to interpret § 1681i as excusing CRAs from 

investigating legal disputes (it is not, but the Court need not address that 

distinct question here), it would not follow that furnishers’ investigatory 

obligations under a different provision, § 1681s-2(b)(1), are similarly 

15 Although this Court has cited Carvalho approvingly with respect to a 

CRA’s obligations, see Losch, 995 F.3d at 946-47, ultimately this Court 

concluded in Losch that a CRA that “did nothing” in response to a 

consumer’s dispute could be found to have violated the FCRA, even though 

it is not required to resolve legal disputes. See discussion infra. 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 29 of 37 

limited. The Ninth Circuit recognized in Gross that decisions about CRAs’ 

obligations under § 1681i should not control the scope of furnishers’ 

investigatory obligations under § 1681s-2(b)(1). See Gross, 33 F.4th at 1253; 

accord Markosyan v. Hunter Warfield, Inc., No. 17-cv-5400, 2018 WL 

2718089, at *8 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2018) (“[T]he rationale for excluding legal 

validity from the scope of a CRA’s investigative duty does not extend to a 

furnisher.”). The institutional competencies of CRAs and furnishers differ: 

CRAs “lack any direct relationships with the consumer . . .” Gross, 33 F.4th 

at 1253 (internal quotations, alteration, and citation omitted). Furnishers, 

by contrast, generally have superior access to the relevant information 

regarding disputed debts. See id. Thus, furnishers’ investigatory obligations 

“will often be more extensive.”16 Id. 

Indeed, even the courts that have distinguished between factual and 

legal investigations by CRAs have recognized the institutional traits that 

differentiate CRAs from furnishers, i.e., that CRAs, as third parties to the 

16 Even in the context of CRA reinvestigations, there is no support in the 

text of the FCRA for distinguishing between “factual” and “legal” 

inaccuracies, and drawing such a distinction risks exposing consumers to 

more inaccurate credit reporting and undercutting the remedial purpose of 

the FCRA. See Brief for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the 

Federal Trade Commission as Amici Curiae Supporting Plaintiff-Appellant 

at 9, Sessa v. Linear Motors, LLC, No. 22-87 (2d Cir. May 5, 2022). 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 30 of 37 

debt-generating transactions, are not as well positioned as furnishers to 

investigate legal disputes arising from those transactions. See, e.g., 

Humphrey v. Trans Union LLC, 759 F. App’x 484, 488 (7th Cir. 2019) 

(concluding that furnisher “was in a better position than the CRAs to make 

this determination” regarding the validity of a loan); see also Gorman, 584 

F.3d at 1156-57 (noting that CRAs “lack[] any direct relationship with the 

consumer”). This Court similarly discussed the role and competency of 

CRAs in Losch, stating that a CRA’s “‘reasonable reinvestigation’ consists 

largely of triggering the investigation by the furnisher,” and therefore 

concluding that CRAs are not required to “resolve legal disputes about the 

validity of the underlying debts they report.” 995 F.3d at 946-47 (emphasis 

added). Even then, however, this Court held that CRAs are not excused 

from conducting at least some independent investigation of disputed 

information, including where the information could be described as 

involving a legal question. Id. 

The cases that import a factual-legal distinction from CRA reinvestigations into the context of furnishers’ investigative responsibilities 

ignore that furnishers can, and do, routinely assess the legal enforceability 

of debt. The district court in Mayer, for example, cited Chiang v. Verizon 

New England, 595 F.3d at 38, 48, which imported a factual-legal 

21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 31 of 37 

distinction from a case about CRAs into the context of furnisher 

investigations, and noted (without explanation) that “like CRAs, furnishers 

are neither qualified nor obligated to resolve matters that turn on questions 

that can only be resolved by a court of law.” Mayer Op. at 6 n.3 (cleaned 

up). But furnishers are qualified and obligated to assess issues such as 

whether debts are actually due and/or are collectible.17 Indeed, furnishers 

routinely assess whether debts are due and collectible when (i) deciding 

whether and how much to collect on obligations and (ii) complying with 

their duties to accurately report credit information. A stark distinction 

between legal and factual disputes is therefore particularly inappropriate in 

the context of furnisher investigations. 

17 For example, for purposes of various furnisher obligations, including 

the requirement that furnishers conduct investigations of direct disputes, 

accuracy is defined in the FCRA’s implementing regulations to include that 

the information “correctly [r]eflects . . . liability for the account.” 12 C.F.R. 

§ 1022.41(a), (a)(1). To fulfill this obligation, furnishers must “establish and 

implement reasonable written policies” that are “appropriate to the nature, 

size, complexity, and scope of each furnisher’s activities.” 12 C.F.R. 

§ 1022.42(a); see also, e.g., Gross, 33 F.4th at 1253 (discussing “several 

factors that inform the reasonableness analysis, including: the furnisher’s 

relationship to the debt and to the consumer; the level of detail in the credit 

reporting agency’s notice of dispute; and the feasibility of implementing 

investigatory procedures, including training staff”). As noted above, the 

Court may look to those regulations for guidance with respect to indirect 

disputes. See supra n.13. 

22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 32 of 37 

3. An Atextual Exception for Legal Inaccuracies Will Create 

a Loophole that Could Swallow the Reasonable 

Investigation Rule 

This Court should also reject a formal distinction between factual and 

legal investigations because it will likely prove unworkable in practice. 

“[C]lassifying a dispute over a debt as ‘factual’ or ‘legal’ will usually prove a 

frustrating exercise.” Cornock v. Trans Union L.L.C., 638 F. Supp. 2d 158, 

163 (D.N.H. 2009). The same dispute could be characterized as either 

factual or legal—or both. For example, the Seventh Circuit recently 

considered a set of consolidated cases in which plaintiffs claimed that they 

did not owe certain debts to the creditors listed on their credit reports 

because the debts had purportedly been assigned to other companies. The 

district courts offered different reasoning and reached different conclusions 

in many of the cases: Some courts determined that whether the creditors 

owned the debts was a question of law; one decided that ownership of a 

debt was a mixed question of law and fact; and still other courts “eschewed 

a rigid distinction between law and fact and focused on the institutional 

competency of the [CRAs] to resolve the claims.” Chuluunbat v. Experian 

Info. Sols., Inc., 4 F.4th 562, 566 (7th Cir. 2021). Likewise, another court 

noted that a plaintiff’s dispute about a fraudulently opened credit card 

account “could be called ‘factual’ in the sense that . . . [plaintiff] did not sign 

23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 33 of 37 

the credit card application as a matter of fact; but it could also be called 

‘legal’ in the sense that, as [the CRA] suggests, [plaintiff] claimed that he 

therefore had no liability as a matter of law while [the bank] claimed 

otherwise based on alleged payments to it out of an account he jointly 

held.” Cornock, 638 F. Supp. 2d at 163. 

The difficulty in distinguishing legal issues from factual ones could 

undermine the FCRA’s important protections, as evidenced by a decision 

currently being appealed to the Second Circuit. In Sessa v. Linear Motors, 

LLC, a CRA erroneously reported that a consumer owed a large “balloon 

payment” at the end of her car lease, when in fact her car lease contained no 

such payment obligation whatsoever. The figure listed as a “balloon 

payment” on her credit report was simply a notation of the residual value of 

the car at lease-end. 576 F. Supp. 3d 1, 5 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (appeal pending). 

Despite the reporting being clear error, the district court granted summary 

judgment to the CRA, finding that the plaintiff consumer’s credit report did 

not contain a “factual inaccuracy” because, it reasoned, the incorrectly 

reported information implicated “a contractual dispute” (i.e., resolving the 

dispute required reading the plain terms of the contract). Id. at 13-14. But 

given that debts are generally creatures of contract, and thus almost any 

dispute about a debt might require a review of the contract terms, this case 

24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 34 of 37 

shows how easily a loophole for “legal” inaccuracies can be manipulated to 

swallow the rule.

18 

Given the difficulty in distinguishing “legal” from “factual” disputes, 

this Court should hold that there is no exemption in the FCRA’s reasonable 

investigation requirement for legal questions. Such an exemption would 

curtail the reach of the FCRA’s investigation requirement in a way that runs 

counter to the purpose of the provision to require meaningful investigation 

to ensure accuracy on credit reports. It would also result in an unworkable 

standard where mixed questions of fact and law are presented, and it would 

encourage the evasion of statutory obligations by allowing furnishers to 

characterize disputes as legal. 

18 As a result of the difficulty in cleanly distinguishing legal and 

factual issues, even in the context of CRA reinvestigations, some courts 

have correctly rejected a formal legal/factual distinction. For example, “the 

Ninth Circuit has endorsed holding a CRA liable under the FCRA when it 

‘overlooks or misinterprets’ . . . publicly available documents of legal 

significance.” Nelson v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 3:14-cv-00419-

HZ, 2014 WL 2866841, at *5 (D. Or. June 23, 2014) (emphasis added) 

(relying on Dennis v. BEH-1, LLC, 520 F.3d 1066, 1068-70 (9th Cir. 

2008)). And even courts that maintain a factual-legal distinction have 

found that if a legal issue has already been adjudicated by another court or 

otherwise resolved, a dispute raising that issue should be considered 

factual, rather than legal. See, e.g., Losch, 995 F.3d at 946-47; Hopkins v. 

I.C. Sys., No. 18-cv-2063, 2020 WL 2557134, at *8 (E.D. Pa. May 5, 2020). 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 35 of 37 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the district courts should 

be reversed. 

December 16, 2022 Seth Frotman 

General Counsel 

Steven Y. Bressler 

Deputy General Counsel 

Kristin Bateman 

Acting Assistant General Counsel 

/s/ Justin M. Sandberg 

Justin M. Sandberg 

Senior Counsel 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

1700 G Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20552 

(202) 450-8786 (Sandberg) 

Justin.Sandberg@cfpb.gov 

Anisha S. Dasgupta 

General Counsel 

Joel Marcus 

Deputy General Counsel 

/s/ Imad Abyad 

Imad D. Abyad 

Attorney 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20580 

(202) 326-3579 (Abyad) 

iabyad@ftc.gov 

26 
 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 36 of 37 

Certificate of Compliance 

This brief complies with the length limits permitted by Federal Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 29(a)(5). The brief contains 5,700 words, excluding 

the portions exempted by Rule 32(f). The brief’s typeface and type style 

comply with Rule 32(a)(5) and (6). 

December 16, 2022 /s/ Justin M. Sandberg 

Justin M. Sandberg 

Senior Counsel 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

1700 G Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20552 

(202) 450-8786 

Justin.Sandberg@cfpb.gov 
 

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11734 Document: 23 Date Filed: 12/16/2022 Page: 37 of 37 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on December 16, 2022, I caused the foregoing to 

be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court for the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF 

system. The participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and 

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

December 16, 2022 /s / Justin M. Sandberg 

Justin M. Sandberg 

Senior Counsel 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

1700 G Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20552 

(202) 450-8786 

Justin.Sandberg@cfpb.gov