## Facts

- Robert Burrell alleged he was a victim of identity theft.
- An unknown person allegedly made nearly $10,000 in purchases on Burrell’s Discover credit card account administered by DFS Services, LLC (Discover).
- The thief allegedly opened or used a Helio, LLC wireless account in Burrell’s name, incurring about $1,000 in charges.
- Burrell alleged he repeatedly told Discover and Helio the charges were fraudulent and attributable to identity theft.
- Burrell alleged the defendants failed to correct the accounts and reported him as delinquent to consumer reporting agencies.
- Burrell asserted federal claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA), plus state-law claims for defamation, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

## Issues

1. Whether a consumer may sue a furnisher of credit information for violations of FCRA § 1681s-2(a).
2. Whether Burrell stated a claim under FCRA § 1681s-2(b) without alleging that a consumer reporting agency notified the furnishers of his dispute.
3. Whether the FCRA preempts state-law tort claims premised on allegedly false credit reporting by furnishers.
4. Whether Burrell stated an FCBA claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1666, and whether the claim is limited by the statute’s 60-day written-notice requirement.

## Decision

- The court granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied them in part.
- FCRA § 1681s-2(a) claims were dismissed with prejudice for lack of a private right of action.
- FCRA § 1681s-2(b) claims were dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend within 30 days to plead the required statutory notice trigger.
- State-law claims (defamation, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress) were dismissed with prejudice as preempted by the FCRA.
- The motion to dismiss the FCBA claim was denied in part; the FCBA claim could proceed only as to charges made during the period beginning 60 days before Burrell submitted a written “Affidavit of Fraud” to Discover.

## Legal Principles

- FCRA § 1681s-2(a) imposes accuracy-related duties on furnishers, but enforcement is reserved to governmental authorities; private plaintiffs cannot sue under § 1681s-2(a).
- A furnisher’s duties under FCRA § 1681s-2(b) arise only after the furnisher receives notice of a dispute from a consumer reporting agency; direct complaints to the furnisher are insufficient to trigger § 1681s-2(b).
- FCRA preemption under 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1)(F) bars state-law claims that seek to impose liability on furnishers for conduct regulated by § 1681s-2, including claims based on alleged false reporting to consumer reporting agencies.
- Under the FCBA, a creditor’s billing-error duties depend on timely written notice; claims may be limited to disputed charges falling within the statute’s 60-day written-notice window.

## Conclusion

The court narrowed Burrell’s available remedies by dismissing his FCRA § 1681s-2(a) and state tort claims with prejudice, requiring amendment to pursue any FCRA § 1681s-2(b) theory based on consumer reporting agency notice, and allowing an FCBA claim to proceed only for charges within the statutory 60-day period tied to Burrell’s written fraud notice to the creditor.


Burrell v. DFS Servs., LLC, 753 F. Supp. 2d 438 (D.N.J. 2010)