## Facts

- Lloyd Sarver’s consumer credit report from Experian included a notation that a Cross Country Bank account had been “involved in bankruptcy.”
- On August 2, 2002, Monogram Bank of Georgia denied Sarver credit, citing the Experian report and referring to the bankruptcy notation.
- Sarver obtained copies of his report showing the bankruptcy notation tied only to the Cross Country account; the report also contained other serious derogatory items (including a Bank One account past due 180 days and a Providian charge-off of $3,099).
- The bankruptcy notation was inaccurate and resulted from a mix-up with another person sharing Sarver’s name.
- On August 29, 2002, Sarver wrote Experian disputing the bankruptcy notation and requesting removal; he provided his name and address but no additional identifiers.
- On September 11, 2002, Experian requested further identifying information, including Sarver’s Social Security number, before beginning an investigation; Sarver did not provide it and instead sued.
- Sarver brought FCRA claims alleging failure to reinvestigate (§ 1681i) and failure to use reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy (§ 1681e(b)); the district court granted summary judgment for Experian.

## Issues

1. Whether Experian violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681i by not reinvestigating after Sarver’s dispute letter when he did not provide additional identifying information requested by Experian.
2. Whether Experian violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy, and whether Sarver presented evidence of actual damages and causation sufficient to survive summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Experian.
- Experian did not violate § 1681i because it reasonably requested additional identifiers needed to conduct a reinvestigation, and Sarver did not supply them.
- Sarver’s § 1681e(b) claim failed because he did not produce evidence that Experian’s procedures were unreasonable, and he did not show actual damages caused by the inaccurate bankruptcy notation rather than other negative information in his report.

## Legal Principles

- FCRA § 1681i requires a consumer reporting agency to reinvestigate disputed information, but the consumer must provide sufficient information to identify the consumer and the challenged item; an agency may reasonably request additional identifiers before proceeding.
- FCRA § 1681e(b) imposes a reasonableness standard, not strict liability; an inaccuracy alone does not establish that the agency failed to employ reasonable procedures.
- To proceed on FCRA claims, a plaintiff must present evidence of actual damages and a causal link between the alleged statutory violation and the asserted harm; the presence of other substantial derogatory items can defeat causation for a claimed credit denial.

## Conclusion

The court held Experian had no FCRA liability where Sarver did not cooperate with a reasonable request for additional identifying information to trigger reinvestigation and, independently, failed to show unreasonable reporting procedures or provable damages causally tied to the erroneous bankruptcy notation.


Sarver v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 390 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2004)