## Facts

- Quentin Crabtree’s credit information appeared on a prescreened list generated from Experian’s consumer reporting data.
- The FCRA permits consumer reporting agencies to furnish prescreened lists to prospective lenders only for statutorily permitted purposes, including extending “firm offers of credit.”
- Experian had a contract allowing a lender (Western Sierra) to receive prescreened lists assembled and transmitted through third-party vendors.
- Experian terminated its contract with Western effective November 18, 2011.
- A prescreened list containing Experian-derived data was delivered to Western on November 30, 2011, after the termination; the list included Crabtree’s information.
- The disclosure was discovered nearly five years later by counsel; Crabtree alleged no identity theft, denial of credit, economic loss, reputational harm, or broader dissemination beyond the prescreening chain.
- Crabtree alleged the statutory violation itself was a concrete injury because it invaded privacy interests protected by the FCRA.
- The district court dismissed for lack of Article III standing, finding any injury too speculative and remote.

## Issues

1. Whether alleging an unauthorized furnishing of credit information on a prescreened list, without downstream misuse or tangible harm, is a concrete injury-in-fact sufficient for Article III standing under *Spokeo*.
2. Whether a “technical” or procedural FCRA violation in the prescreening context, by itself, establishes a concrete invasion of privacy traditionally actionable at common law.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held Crabtree lacked Article III standing because he did not allege a concrete injury.
- The court treated the alleged FCRA violation as a bare statutory/procedural violation divorced from any real-world harm.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing requires a concrete and particularized injury; a statutory cause of action does not eliminate that requirement.
- After *Spokeo*, courts assess whether the asserted harm bears a close relationship to traditionally recognized harms (e.g., certain privacy or reputational injuries).
- A prescreening disclosure that results only in a firm offer of credit and is not alleged to have been disseminated beyond the lender/prescreening chain, without further adverse consequences, is insufficiently concrete to confer standing.
- Allegations of remoteness and lack of actual consequences support dismissal for lack of jurisdiction even if the statute was technically violated.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit concluded that a consumer cannot invoke federal jurisdiction based solely on an alleged FCRA authorization lapse in prescreening when the complaint alleges no concrete consequences such as misuse, broader publication, reputational injury, economic loss, or adverse credit effects.


Crabtree v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 948 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2020)