UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

CHRISTINE ALLEN-BROWN, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 

)

v. ) Judge

)

EQUIFAX INFORMATION )

SERVICES, LLC, )

)

and )

) COMPLAINT

EXPERIAN INFORMATION )

SOLUTIONS, INC., ) Jury Demand Endorsed Herein

)

and )

)

TRANS UNION, LLC, )

)

and )

)

MIDNIGHT VELVET, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Christine Allen-Brown, by and through undersigned counsel, and for her

Complaint against the Defendants, Equifax Information Services, LLC, Experian Information Solutions, 

Inc., Trans Union, LLC, and Midnight Velvet, Inc., she states and avers as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for actual, statutory and punitive damages brought by Plaintiff against 

Defendants for the willful, knowing, and/or negligent violation of, inter alia, Chapter 41, the Consumer 

Credit Protection Credit Act, of Title 15 (Commerce and Trade) of the United States Code, specifically, 

15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., known as the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) which relates to the proper 

dissemination and use of consumer credit and other financial information.

Case: 1:18-cv-00491-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/19/18 Page: 1 of 20 PAGEID #: 1
2

PARTIES

2. Christine Allen-Brown (“Plaintiff”) is a natural person that resides in Cincinnati, Ohio.

3. Plaintiff is a "consumer" as that term is defined by the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).

4. Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Equifax”) is foreign limited liability company that 

regularly transacts business in Ohio through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 50 West 

Broad Street, Suite 1330, Columbus, Ohio 43215.

5. Equifax is a national consumer reporting agency as defined by the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 

1681a(f).

6. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) is a domestic corporation that regularly 

transacts business in Ohio through its registered agent, CT Corporation System, 4400 Easton Commons 

Way, Suite 125, Columbus, OH 43219.

7. Experian is a national consumer reporting agency as defined by the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 

1681a(f).

8. Trans Union, LLC (“Trans Union”) is foreign limited liability company that regularly 

transacts business in Ohio through its registered agent, The Prentice-Hall Corporation System, Inc., 50 

West Broad Street, Suite 1330, Columbus, Ohio 43215.

9. Trans Union is a national consumer reporting agency as defined by the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 

1681a(f).

10. Midnight Velvet, Inc. (“Midnight Velvet”) is a retail shopping website that offers financing 

options for its consumers. 

11. Midnight Velvet is a foreign corporation based in Wisconsin that regularly transacts 

business with Ohio consumers.

12. Midnight Velvet is a furnisher of information as contemplated by the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 

Case: 1:18-cv-00491-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/19/18 Page: 2 of 20 PAGEID #: 2
3

1681s-2(a) & (b), that regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or 

more consumer reporting agencies.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 

1681p. 

14. Venue in this District is proper because Plaintiff resides in this District, Defendants transact

business in this District, and the conduct complained of occurred in this District.

BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

15. In early 2016, Plaintiff decided she was ready to start a new chapter in her life and wanted 

to purchase a new home.

16. She began speaking with Gateway Mortgage Group, LLC, a mortgage lender in the 

Cincinnati, Ohio area about a new home purchase.

17. On or about July 11, 2016, she submitted an application for financing. She was very 

excited to move forward and start a new life with her daughter and granddaughter. 

18. Unfortunately, her application was denied because her credit score was too low for her to 

be eligible for financing.

19. Plaintiff was heartbroken. She was certain that she was financially responsible enough to 

deserve this home loan.

20. On or about July 22, 2016, she obtained a copy of her credit report to try and understand 

why her credit score was so low.

21. Plaintiff was shocked and dismayed to discover that an account with Midnight Velvet, an 

online clothing retailer, was reporting derogatory information on her credit reports with the three major 

consumer reporting agencies, Equifax, Experian and Trans Union (“the CRAs”).

Case: 1:18-cv-00491-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/19/18 Page: 3 of 20 PAGEID #: 3
4

22. Plaintiff never opened an account with Midnight Velvet, nor does she ever recall even

visiting its website.

23. In an effort to minimize any damage from what she believed must be a simple mistake, on 

or about July 28, 2016, Plaintiff contacted the CRAs by letter to dispute the false information and request 

removal of the Midnight Velvet account.

24. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(2) of the FCRA, the CRAs were then required to 

reasonably investigate Plaintiff’s dispute, as well as forward copies of Plaintiff’s dispute letters to 

Midnight Velvet.

25. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA, Midnight Velvet was then obligated to 

investigate the disputed information for accuracy, and modify or delete the information if the disputed 

information was determined to be incomplete or inaccurate.

26. All three CRAs responded to Plaintiff by letters stating they “verified” the accuracy of the 

disputed information and it would remain on Plaintiff’s credit reports.

27. Around this same time, Plaintiff was in contact with Midnight Velvet about the inaccurate 

account.

28. Midnight Velvet acknowledged that the account did not belong to Plaintiff and instead 

belonged to a “Cedric Allen” located in Kentucky. 

29. Plaintiff does not know anyone named “Cedric Allen” nor has she ever resided in 

Kentucky.

30. Midnight Velvet advised they would request removal of the account from the CRAs.

Plaintiff cautiously trusted and believed that the matter would be taken care of.

31. Wanting to stay vigilant about making sure this false information was removed from her 

credit history, Plaintiff obtained another copy of her reports on or around August 26, 2016. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00491-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/19/18 Page: 4 of 20 PAGEID #: 4
5

32. Plaintiff was discouraged and dismayed to find the derogatory Midnight Velvet account 

was still listed on her credit reports with all three CRAs. 

33. Plaintiff was confused why Midnight Velvet had promised to fix this problem, yet it was 

still on all of her credit reports. Did Midnight Velvet actually contact the CRAs as promised? Or were 

the CRAs ignoring the problem? Plaintiff was frustrated that she had no way of knowing, and in the 

meantime, she was still being strapped with someone else’s negative credit.

34. Nevertheless, Plaintiff refused to give up, and on or about August 26, 2016, she sent 

another letter to each of the CRAs again disputing the Midnight Velvet account. 

35. Confusingly, the CRAs responded once again with written letters stating the account was 

“accurate” and would stay on her credit report.

36. Plaintiff was extremely confused. She had received confirmation from Midnight Velvet 

that the account was not hers and, in fact, belonged to someone with an entirely different name (and 

gender) living in another state. How and why would this account be allowed to stay on Plaintiff’s credit 

reports? Was Midnight Velvet telling the CRAs incorrect information? Were the CRAs ignoring her 

letters? Was anyone paying attention to Plaintiff’s disputes?

37. Plaintiff, now discouraged and angered that this patently false information is being allowed 

to stay on her report, sent the CRAs additional letters in October 2016, and January 2017, pleading that 

the derogatory Midnight Velvet account be removed.

38. However, each time the CRAs responded to the dispute letters stating that Midnight Velvet

had verified the accuracy of the disputed information and the account would remain unchanged.

39. After contacting Midnight Velvet and the CRAs repeatedly to fix this issue to no avail, 

Plaintiff is at a loss as to how to follow, let alone combat, the CRAs’ logic in allowing someone else’s bad 

credit to remain in Plaintiff’s credit report. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00491-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/19/18 Page: 5 of 20 PAGEID #: 5
6

40. The CRAs have complete control over the credit picture they paint of Plaintiff, and yet they 

refuse to correct an objectively false error. Plaintiff feels helpless and hopeless as to what else she can 

do. 

41. Plaintiff fears that she will not be able to obtain an accurate credit report, and so, will 

continue to be denied her chance to buy a new home. This has imposed upon Plaintiff great sadness and 

frustration, as well as anger and disgust. 

42. Plaintiff also finds it profoundly unfair that Midnight Velvet can allegedly “verify” false 

information, and the CRAs continue to let them do it. 

43. Plaintiff has lost all trust in the credit reporting system, and believes that litigation is her 

only option to fix her credit reports.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Negligent and Willful Violations of 15 US.C. § 1681i(a) and e(b) by Equifax

44. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as if fully 

rewritten here. 

45. A “consumer reporting agency” is defined by the FCRA as follows:

46. [A]ny person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly 

engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or 

other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which 

uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer 

reports. 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f).

47. Equifax is a “consumer reporting agency” as defined by the FCRA.

48. Section 1681n of the FCRA imposes civil liability on any entity “who willfully fails to 

comply with any requirement” of the Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a).

Case: 1:18-cv-00491-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/19/18 Page: 6 of 20 PAGEID #: 6
7

49. Section 1681o of the FCRA provides for civil liability against any entity that is negligent 

in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under the Act.

50. The FCRA mandates that a CRA conduct an investigation of the accuracy of information 

“[i]f the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer’s file” is disputed 

by the consumer. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1). The Act imposes a 30-day time limitation for the 

completing of such an investigation. Id.

51. The FCRA provides that if a CRA conducts an investigation of disputed information and 

confirms that the information is, in fact, inaccurate, or is unable to verify the accuracy of the disputed 

information, the CRA is required to delete that item of information from the consumer’s file. See 15 

U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(A). 

Equifax’s Reasonable Reinvestigation Violations

52. By letters dated July 28. 2016, August 26, 2016, October 26, 2016, and finally on January 

24, 2017, Plaintiff disputed the false Midnight Velvet account information appearing on her Equifax credit 

report.

53. Plaintiff specifically advised Equifax that a mistake had been made, provided all necessary 

information to Equifax to support same, and requested the trade line be deleted accordingly.

54. Either Equifax conducted no investigation of Plaintiff’s disputes, or such “investigations” 

were so lacking as to allow objectively false and highly damaging information to remain in Plaintiff’s 

credit file.

55. By failing to conduct a reasonable investigation into Plaintiff’s disputes in this regard, 

Equifax willfully and/or negligently violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1).

Case: 1:18-cv-00491-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/19/18 Page: 7 of 20 PAGEID #: 7
8

56. As a direct and proximate result of Equifax’s repeated disregard for each of Plaintiff’s 

disputes, Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of trust in the credit reporting system and its 

accountability to the average consumer.

57. As a direct and proximate result of Equifax’s willful and/or negligent refusal to delete false 

information from Plaintiff’s credit report upon dispute as specifically mandated by the FCRA, Plaintiff 

has suffered loss and damage including, but not limited to economic and noneconomic loss such as loss 

of opportunity to obtain credit, damage to reputation, expenditure of considerable time and out-of-pocket 

expenses, worry, fear, distress, frustration and embarrassment, entitling her to an award of actual damages 

in amounts to be proved at trial, plus attorneys’ fees together with the costs of this action pursuant to 15 

U.S.C. § 1681o.

58. Upon information and belief, Equifax has exhibited a pattern of refusing to correct 

consumer credit files despite being on notice of patently false information contained in such files, 

ultimately valuing its own bottom line above its “grave responsibility” to report accurate data on 

consumers.

59. Equifax’s pattern of refusal to correct patently false information as mandated by the FCRA 

reveals a conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff. The injuries suffered by Plaintiff are attended by 

circumstances of fraud, malice, retaliation, and willful and wanton misconduct, calling for statutory 

damages, an assessment of punitive damages, plus attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant 15 U.S.C. § 1681n.

Equifax’s Failure To Follow Reasonable Procedures

To Assure Maximum Possible Accuracy

60. The FCRA mandates that “[w]henever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer 

report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information 

concerning the individual about whom the report relates.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). 

Case: 1:18-cv-00491-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/19/18 Page: 8 of 20 PAGEID #: 8
9

61. On numerous occasions, Equifax has prepared a patently false consumer report concerning 

Plaintiff. 

62. Despite actual and implied knowledge that the Midnight Velvet account did not belong to 

Plaintiff, Equifax readily sold such false reports to one or more third parties without regard to the accuracy 

or inaccuracy of what Equifax reported. 

63. On each such instance, Equifax willfully and/or negligently failed to follow reasonable 

procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the consumer reports it prepared and/or published 

pertaining to Plaintiff, in violation of Section 1681e(b).

64. Through Plaintiff’s communications with Equifax, Equifax knew, or had sufficient reason 

to know, that when it prepared and sold a consumer report about Plaintiff, the information it was 

circulating was inaccurate and damaging to Plaintiff. Nevertheless, Equifax took no measure to stop 

painting a false and damaging picture about Plaintiff.

65. Upon information and belief, Equifax also knew, or had sufficient reason to know, from its 

communications with Midnight Velvet that the account being disputed by Plaintiff belonged to someone 

with a different first and last name, of a different gender, who lived in a different state than Plaintiff. It is 

patently unreasonable for Equifax to have allowed this information to have been mixed or merged into 

Plaintiff’s credit file in the first place. 

66. Plaintiff has suffered out-of-pocket loss as a result of Equifax’s willful and/or negligent 

violations of the FCRA including, without limitation, the premiums Plaintiff must spend for a credit 

monitoring service – a credit monitoring service that, ironically, further lined Equifax’s pockets. 

67. As a direct and proximate result of Equifax’s willful and/or negligent refusal to follow 

reasonable procedures to assure “maximum possible accuracy” as specifically mandated by the FCRA, 

Plaintiff has suffered loss and damage including, but not limited to economic and noneconomic loss such 

Case: 1:18-cv-00491-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/19/18 Page: 9 of 20 PAGEID #: 9
10

as loss of opportunity to obtain credit, damage to reputation, expenditure of considerable time and out-ofpocket expenses, worry, fear, distress, frustration and embarrassment, entitling her to an award of actual 

damages in amounts to be proved at trial, plus attorneys’ fees together with the costs of this action pursuant 

to 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.

68. Upon information and belief, Equifax has exhibited a pattern of refusing to follow 

reasonable procedures as mandated by the FCRA, specifically including improperly mixing and/or 

merging information of more than one person into a consumer’s credit file, ultimately valuing its own 

bottom line above its “grave responsibility” to report accurate data on consumers. 

69. Equifax’s pattern of refusal to follow reasonable procedures as mandated by the FCRA 

reveals a conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff. The injuries suffered by Plaintiff are attended by 

circumstances of fraud, malice, and willful and wanton misconduct, entitling Plaintiff to statutory 

damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(2). 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for judgment in her favor and against Equifax, and for the 

following relief:

(a) Actual damages sustained; 

(b) Statutory damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1000 on each willful violation 

of the FCRA;

(c) Punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

(d) Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

(e) Any other and/or further relief as deemed appropriate and just by this Honorable Court. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Negligent and Willful Violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i and e(b) by Experian

67. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as if fully 

Case: 1:18-cv-00491-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/19/18 Page: 10 of 20 PAGEID #: 10
11

rewritten here. 

Experian’s Reasonable Reinvestigation Violations

68. By letters dated July 28. 2016, August 26, 2016, October 26, 2016, and finally on January 

24, 2017, Plaintiff disputed the false Midnight Velvet account information appearing on her Experian 

credit report.

69. Plaintiff specifically advised Experian that a mistake had been made, provided all necessary 

information to Experian to support same, and requested the trade line be deleted accordingly.

70. Either Experian conducted no investigation of Plaintiff’s disputes, or such “investigations” 

were so lacking as to allow objectively false and highly damaging information to remain in Plaintiff’s 

credit file. 

71. By failing to conduct a reasonable investigation into Plaintiff’s disputes in this regard, 

Experian willfully and/or negligently violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1).

72. As a direct and proximate result of Experian’s repeated disregard for each of Plaintiff’s 

disputes, Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of trust in the credit reporting system and its accountability 

to the average consumer.

73. As a direct and proximate result of Experian’s willful and/or negligent refusal to remove 

false information from Plaintiff’s credit report upon dispute as specifically mandated by the FCRA, 

Plaintiff has suffered loss and damage including, but not limited to economic and noneconomic loss such 

as loss of opportunity to obtain credit, damage to reputation, expenditure of considerable time and out-ofpocket expenses, worry, fear, distress, frustration and embarrassment, entitling her to an award of actual 

damages in amounts to be proved at trial, plus attorneys’ fees together with the costs of this action pursuant 

to 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.

74. Upon information and belief, Experian has exhibited a pattern of refusing to correct 

Case: 1:18-cv-00491-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/19/18 Page: 11 of 20 PAGEID #: 11
12

consumer credit files despite being on notice of patently false information contained in such files, 

ultimately valuing its own bottom line above its “grave responsibility” to report accurate data on 

consumers.

75. Experian’s pattern of refusal to correct patently false information as mandated by the FCRA 

reveals a conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff. The injuries suffered by Plaintiff are attended by 

circumstances of fraud, malice, retaliation, and willful and wanton misconduct, calling for statutory 

damages, an assessment of punitive damages, plus attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. 

Experian’s Failure To Follow Reasonable Procedures

To Assure Maximum Possible Accuracy

76. The FCRA mandates that “[w]henever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer 

report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information 

concerning the individual about whom the report relates.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). 

77. On numerous occasions, Experian has prepared a patently false consumer report 

concerning Plaintiff. 

78. Despite actual and implied knowledge that the Midnight Velvet account did not belong to 

Plaintiff, Experian readily sold such false reports to one or more third parties without regard to the 

accuracy or inaccuracy of what Experian reported. 

79. On each such instance, Experian willfully and/or negligently failed to follow reasonable 

procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the consumer reports it prepared and/or published 

pertaining to Plaintiff, in violation of Section 1681e(b).

80. Through Plaintiff’s communications with Experian, Experian knew, or had sufficient 

reason to know, that when it prepared and sold a consumer report about Plaintiff, the information it was 

circulating was inaccurate and damaging to Plaintiff. Nevertheless, Experian took no measure to stop 

Case: 1:18-cv-00491-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/19/18 Page: 12 of 20 PAGEID #: 12
13

painting a false and damaging picture about Plaintiff.

81. Upon information and belief, Experian also knew, or had sufficient reason to know, from 

its communications with Midnight Velvet that the account being disputed by Plaintiff belonged to 

someone with a different first and last name, of a different gender, who lived in a different state than 

Plaintiff. It is patently unreasonable for Experian to have allowed this information to have been mixed or 

merged into Plaintiff’s credit file in the first place.

82. Plaintiff has suffered out-of-pocket loss as a result of Experian’s willful and/or negligent 

violations of the FCRA including, without limitation, the premiums Plaintiff must spend for a credit 

monitoring service – a credit monitoring service that, ironically, further lined Experian’s pockets. 

83. As a direct and proximate result of Experian’s willful and/or negligent refusal to follow 

reasonable procedures to assure “maximum possible accuracy” as specifically mandated by the FCRA, 

Plaintiff has suffered loss and damage including, but not limited to economic and noneconomic loss such 

as loss of opportunity to obtain credit, damage to reputation, expenditure of considerable time and out-ofpocket expenses, worry, fear, distress, frustration and embarrassment, entitling her to an award of actual 

damages in amounts to be proved at trial, plus attorneys’ fees together with the costs of this action pursuant 

to 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.

84. Upon information and belief, Experian has exhibited a pattern of refusing to follow 

reasonable procedures as mandated by the FCRA, specifically including improperly mixing and/or 

merging information of more than one person into a consumer’s credit file, ultimately valuing its own 

bottom line above its “grave responsibility” to report accurate data on consumers. 

Experian’s pattern of refusal to follow reasonable procedures as mandated by the FCRA reveals a 

conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff. The injuries suffered by Plaintiff are attended by 

circumstances of fraud, malice, and willful and wanton misconduct, entitling Plaintiff to statutory 

Case: 1:18-cv-00491-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/19/18 Page: 13 of 20 PAGEID #: 13
14

damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(2). 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for judgment in her favor and against Experian, and for the 

following relief:

(a) Actual damages sustained; 

(b) Statutory damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1000 on each willful violation 

of the FCRA;

(c) Punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

(d) Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

(e) Any other and/or further relief as deemed appropriate and just by this Honorable Court. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Negligent and Willful Violations of 15 US.C. § 1681i(a) and e(b) by Trans Union

85. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as if fully 

rewritten here. 

Trans Union’s Reasonable Reinvestigation Violations

86. By letters dated July 28. 2016, August 26, 2016, October 26, 2016, and January 24, 2017, 

Plaintiff disputed the false Midnight Velvet account information appearing on her Trans Union credit 

report. 

87. Plaintiff specifically advised Trans Union that a mistake had been made, provided all 

necessary information to Trans Union to support same, and requested the trade line be deleted accordingly.

88. Either Trans Union conducted no investigation of Plaintiff’s disputes, or such 

“investigations” were so lacking as to allow objectively false and highly damaging information to remain 

in Plaintiff’s credit file. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00491-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/19/18 Page: 14 of 20 PAGEID #: 14
15

89. By failing to conduct a reasonable investigation into Plaintiff’s disputes in this regard, Trans 

Union willfully and/or negligently violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1).

90. As a direct and proximate result of Trans Union’s repeated disregard for each of Plaintiff’s 

disputes, Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of trust in the credit reporting system and its accountability 

to the average consumer.

91. As a direct and proximate result of Trans Union’s willful and/or negligent refusal to remove 

false information from Plaintiff’s credit report upon dispute as specifically mandated by the FCRA, 

Plaintiff has suffered loss and damage including, but not limited to economic and noneconomic loss such 

as loss of opportunity to obtain credit, damage to reputation, expenditure of considerable time and out-ofpocket expenses, worry, fear, distress, frustration and embarrassment, entitling her to an award of actual 

damages in amounts to be proved at trial, plus attorneys’ fees together with the costs of this action pursuant 

to 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.

92. Upon information and belief, Trans Union has exhibited a pattern of refusing to correct 

consumer credit files despite being on notice of patently false information contained in such files, 

ultimately valuing its own bottom line above its “grave responsibility” to report accurate data on 

consumers.

93. Trans Union’s pattern of refusal to correct patently false information as mandated by the 

FCRA reveals a conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff. The injuries suffered by Plaintiff are 

attended by circumstances of fraud, malice, retaliation, and willful and wanton misconduct, calling for 

statutory damages, an assessment of punitive damages, plus attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1681n. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00491-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/19/18 Page: 15 of 20 PAGEID #: 15
16

Trans Union’s Failure To Follow Reasonable Procedures

To Assure Maximum Possible Accuracy

94. The FCRA mandates that “[w]henever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer 

report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information 

concerning the individual about whom the report relates.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). 

95. On numerous occasions, Trans Union has prepared a patently false consumer report 

concerning Plaintiff. 

96. Despite actual and implied knowledge that the Midnight Velvet account did not belong to 

Plaintiff, Trans Union readily sold such false reports to one or more third parties without regard to the 

accuracy or inaccuracy of what Experian reported. 

97. On each such instance, Trans Union willfully and/or negligently failed to follow reasonable 

procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the consumer reports it prepared and/or published 

pertaining to Plaintiff, in violation of Section 1681e(b).

98. Through Plaintiff’s communications with Trans Union, Trans Union knew, or had 

sufficient reason to know, that when it prepared and sold a consumer report about Plaintiff, the information 

it was circulating was inaccurate and damaging to Plaintiff. Nevertheless, Trans Union took no measure 

to stop painting a false and damaging picture about Plaintiff.

99. Upon information and belief, Trans Union also knew, or had sufficient reason to know, 

from its communications with Midnight Velvet that the account being disputed by Plaintiff belonged to 

someone with a different first and last name, of a different gender, who lived in a different state than 

Plaintiff. It is patently unreasonable for Experian to have allowed this information to have been mixed or 

merged into Plaintiff’s credit file in the first place.

100. Plaintiff has suffered out-of-pocket loss as a result of Trans Union’s willful and/or 

Case: 1:18-cv-00491-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/19/18 Page: 16 of 20 PAGEID #: 16
17

negligent violations of the FCRA including, without limitation, the premiums Plaintiff must spend for a 

credit monitoring service – a credit monitoring service that, ironically, further lined Trans Union’s pockets. 

101. As a direct and proximate result of Trans Union’s willful and/or negligent refusal to follow 

reasonable procedures to assure “maximum possible accuracy” as specifically mandated by the FCRA, 

Plaintiff has suffered loss and damage including, but not limited to economic and noneconomic loss such 

as loss of opportunity to obtain credit, damage to reputation, expenditure of considerable time and out-ofpocket expenses, worry, fear, distress, frustration and embarrassment, entitling her to an award of actual 

damages in amounts to be proved at trial, plus attorneys’ fees together with the costs of this action pursuant 

to 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.

102. Upon information and belief, Trans Union has exhibited a pattern of refusing to follow 

reasonable procedures as mandated by the FCRA, specifically including improperly mixing and/or 

merging information of more than one person into a consumer’s credit file, ultimately valuing its own 

bottom line above its “grave responsibility” to report accurate data on consumers. 

103. Trans Union’s pattern of refusal to follow reasonable procedures as mandated by the FCRA 

reveals a conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff. The injuries suffered by Plaintiff are attended by 

circumstances of fraud, malice, and willful and wanton misconduct, entitling Plaintiff to statutory 

damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(2). 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for judgment in her favor and against Trans Union, and for the 

following relief:

(f) Actual damages sustained; 

(g) Statutory damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1000 on each willful violation 

of the FCRA;

(h) Punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

Case: 1:18-cv-00491-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/19/18 Page: 17 of 20 PAGEID #: 17
18

(i) Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

(j) Any other and/or further relief as deemed appropriate and just by this Honorable Court. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Negligent and Willful Violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 by Midnight Velvet

104. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as if fully 

rewritten here.

105. Midnight Velvet is a “furnisher” as that term is used in 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2. 

106. Furnishers of credit information have duties under the FCRA, specifically 15 U.S.C. § 

1681s-2(b)(1), to investigate disputes initiated from consumers to CRAs as to the accuracy of information 

reported about them by the furnisher. 

107. On at least four (4) occasions, namely July 28. 2016, August 26, 2016, October 26, 2016, 

and January 24, 2017, Plaintiff contacted the CRAs specifically to dispute the accuracy of the derogatory 

Midnight Velvet account being reported about her.

108. Plaintiff specifically advised the CRAs on each occasion that the information being reported 

was false, provided all necessary information to the CRAs to support her dispute, and requested the false 

information be deleted accordingly.

109. Upon information and belief, and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(2), Midnight Velvet

received notification of these disputes from the CRAs. 

110. Nevertheless, on multiple occasions in the last two (2) years, the false Midnight Velvet 

account was allowed to remain on Plaintiff’s credit report under the guise that Midnight Velvet had 

“verified” the information as true. 

111. Either Midnight Velvet conducted no real investigation of Plaintiff’s disputes, or such 

“investigations” were so lacking as to allow confirmed information known to be false and highly damaging 

Case: 1:18-cv-00491-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/19/18 Page: 18 of 20 PAGEID #: 18
19

to remain in Plaintiff’s credit file. 

112. Midnight Velvet’s failures in this regard are exacerbated by the sheer number of times 

Midnight Velvet was contacted about this particular account.

113. Midnight Velvet’s failures in this regard are exacerbated by the fact that Plaintiff personally 

contacted Midnight Velvet on numerous occasions to dispute this false information. 

114. By failing to conduct a reasonable investigation into Plaintiff’s disputes in this regard, 

Midnight Velvet negligently and/or willfully violated § 1681s-2(b)(1) with respect to each dispute lodged 

by Plaintiff. 

115. As a direct and proximate result of Midnight Velvet’s willful and/or negligent refusal to 

comply with the FCRA as described herein, Plaintiff has suffered loss and damage including, but not 

limited to: financial loss, loss of creditworthiness, loss of credit opportunity, damage to reputation, 

expenditure of significant time, energy and out-of-pocket costs, considerable distress, mental anguish,

worry, frustration, fear and embarrassment, entitling Plaintiff to an award of actual damages as determined 

by the jury, plus attorneys’ fees and the costs of this action, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681o. 

116. Midnight Velvet’s complete and utter indifference as to its obligations under the FCRA 

reveals a conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, and the injuries suffered by Plaintiff are attended 

by circumstances of fraud, malice, and willful and wanton misconduct, calling for an assessment of 

punitive damages against Midnight Velvet, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(2).

WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for judgment in her favor and against Midnight Velvet, and for the 

following relief:

(a) Actual damages sustained; 

(b) Statutory damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1000 on each willful violation 

of the FCRA;

Case: 1:18-cv-00491-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/19/18 Page: 19 of 20 PAGEID #: 19
20

(c) Punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

(d) Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

(e) Any other and/or further relief as deemed appropriate and just by this Honorable Court.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff respectfully demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable in this lawsuit.

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Sylvia A. Goldsmith

Sylvia A Goldsmith (#0064871)

GOLDSMITH & ASSOCIATES, LLC

20545 Center Ridge Rd., Suite 415

Rocky River, OH 44116

Telephone: (440) 934-3025 

Facsimile: (440) 934-3026 

E-mail: goldsmith@goldsmithlawyers.com

Andrew M. Esselman (Pro Hac Vice forthcoming) 

CREDIT LAW CENTER

4041 NE Lakewood Way, Suite 200

Lee's Summit, MO 64064

Telephone: 816-246-7800

Facsimile: 855-523-6884

Email: andrewe@creditlawcenter.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Christine Allen-Brown

Case: 1:18-cv-00491-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/19/18 Page: 20 of 20 PAGEID #: 20