## Facts

- Denise and Robert Richardson obtained a $50,000 home equity loan in 1988 from Shawmut Bank of Hampshire County.
- After discovering accounting errors, they settled with Shawmut in December 1994; Shawmut forgave about $20,000 and agreed no derogatory information would be reported to credit reporting agencies.
- Shawmut nonetheless treated the forgiven balance as a “charge-off,” and later collection efforts continued despite the settlement.
- Shawmut sent a December 1, 1995 letter stating it would correct the reporting so the account would read “paid as agreed.”
- Fleet later acquired Shawmut and continued to report the loan as a charge-off, including a duplicative second account with the same status.
- Plaintiffs and Fleet sent multiple correction notices (including Universal Data Forms) to Equifax requesting the account be updated to “paid as agreed,” but Equifax continued reporting a charge-off.
- Before a disputed credit decision, the Richardsons contacted Equifax at least three times about errors in their file.
- In August 1997, the Richardsons were denied BP Oil credit cards; denial letters identified derogatory credit information and identified Equifax as the reporting agency source.
- Equifax’s dispute process, as applied here, reverified the account by contacting the furnisher (Fleet) and relied on the furnisher’s confirmation.
- Plaintiffs alleged credit denials and emotional distress from continued publication of the inaccurate charge-off.

## Issues

1. Whether Equifax failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy under the FCRA and the parallel Massachusetts statute when it continued reporting a charge-off after repeated correction notices.
2. Whether Equifax failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation under the FCRA and parallel Massachusetts law by limiting its reinvestigation to re-verification with the furnisher.
3. Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence of causation and damages (including credit denial and emotional distress) to proceed on negligence-based statutory claims.
4. Whether the record supported willful noncompliance, defamation (malice/willful intent), intentional infliction of emotional distress, or liability under Massachusetts ch. 93A.

## Decision

- Equifax’s summary-judgment motion was granted in part and denied in part.
- Summary judgment was denied on claims that Equifax negligently violated the FCRA and Massachusetts law by using unreasonable accuracy procedures and by conducting an unreasonable reinvestigation.
- Summary judgment was denied as to causation and damages for the negligence-based statutory claims, based in part on credit-denial evidence identifying Equifax as the source.
- Summary judgment was granted for Equifax on willful FCRA and willful Massachusetts statutory claims.
- Summary judgment was granted for Equifax on defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and Massachusetts ch. 93A claims.

## Legal Principles

- Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), a consumer reporting agency must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy; reasonableness is commonly a fact question.
- Once a consumer reporting agency has notice of a potential inaccuracy, a jury may find it unreasonable to rely exclusively on the furnisher’s repeated confirmation without additional steps to resolve the dispute.
- Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i, a “reasonable reinvestigation” may require more than re-verification with the original source when the agency has information suggesting the source may be unreliable or inconsistent with prior corrections.
- Evidence that an adverse creditor decision relied on derogatory information supplied by the agency can create a triable issue on causation.
- Willful statutory liability and related tort theories require proof beyond negligence; absent evidence of willfulness or malice, FCRA-based defamation, IIED, and overlapping ch. 93A theories fail at summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the FCRA and Massachusetts statutory claims to proceed to trial on whether Equifax acted unreasonably in accuracy procedures and reinvestigation after repeated dispute notices, but dismissed claims requiring proof of willfulness, malice, or extreme and outrageous conduct.


Richardson v. Fleet Bank of Mass., 190 F. Supp. 2d 81 (D. Mass. 2001)