## Facts

- Deborah Northrop sought to refinance her home loan through a mortgage company, which obtained her consumer credit report.
- The credit report showed a recent inquiry by Hoffman of Simsbury, Inc., a business with which Northrop alleged she had no prior dealings.
- The mortgage company demanded an explanation for the unexplained inquiry, prompting Northrop to contact Hoffman.
- Northrop alleged Hoffman initially did not respond and later claimed records regarding the inquiry had been destroyed, after which it stopped returning her calls.
- Northrop alleged that Hoffman employees and other defendants used Hoffman’s facilities to obtain her consumer credit report without authorization, for an undisclosed and impermissible purpose, and under false pretenses.
- Northrop claimed the procurement of the report interfered with her refinancing efforts and caused emotional distress.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff states a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act when alleging that defendants, as users of consumer information, obtained a consumer report under false pretenses, even if defendants are not consumer reporting agencies.
2. Whether dismissal is proper where the complaint cites FCRA provisions commonly applied to consumer reporting agencies, but the factual allegations support liability under FCRA provisions addressing procurement of reports under false pretenses.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of the FCRA claim and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that civil liability under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n may extend to “any person,” including users of consumer reports, who willfully obtain a report under false pretenses in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681q.
- The court held that a complaint is not subject to dismissal solely because it cites the wrong statutory subsection if the pleaded facts, taken as true, state a viable claim under the statute.
- Because the federal claim was reinstated, the court also vacated the dismissal of the state CUTPA claims that had been dismissed after the district court declined supplemental jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FCRA, civil liability under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n is not limited to consumer reporting agencies; it may reach users of consumer reports who willfully violate the Act.
- A user who knowingly and willfully obtains a consumer report from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses violates 15 U.S.C. § 1681q and may be subject to civil damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n.
- At the pleading stage, allegations that a defendant obtained a report without a permissible purpose and concealed or misrepresented the purpose can support an inference of procurement under false pretenses.
- A plaintiff’s failure to cite the precise statutory provision does not defeat an otherwise sufficient claim when the factual allegations fit a viable legal theory under the statute.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that the FCRA permits claims against non-agency defendants alleged to have procured a consumer report under false pretenses and that technical errors in statutory citation do not justify dismissal when the complaint’s factual allegations plausibly state an FCRA violation; the case was remanded for further proceedings, including reconsideration of the related state-law claims.


Northrop v. Hoffman of Simsbury, Inc., 134 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1997)