- Case
- Berry v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
- Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- Citation
- 115 F.4th 528 (6th Cir. 2024)
- Decided
- August 19, 2024
- Bottom line
- When you send a credit bureau a court order that contradicts what a furnisher reports, the bureau may not simply rubber-stamp the furnisher's answer.
Background
Adam Berry divorced in early 2021 and, according to his complaint, paid child and spousal support directly to his former wife rather than through Michigan’s Office of Child Support (OCS). OCS nonetheless recorded an unpaid balance. Berry obtained two Michigan court orders, in June 2021 and March 2022, stating that his obligation to pay support “and all arrears” through OCS was “abated until further order of the Court.”
When Berry tried to refinance his student loans, a lender told him Experian was reporting unpaid support. He disputed with Experian three times and attached the court orders to his third dispute. Each time, Experian sent an automated verification request to OCS, OCS confirmed the balance, and Experian left the reporting unchanged. Berry sued under § 1681e(b) (reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy) and § 1681i (reasonable reinvestigation).
The district court granted Experian judgment on the pleadings. It relied on 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-1, which says that “notwithstanding any other provision” of the FCRA, a credit bureau “shall include” in consumer reports information on overdue support provided by a state or local child support enforcement agency.
What the court held
Judge Cole, joined by Judge Gibbons, reversed. The court agreed that § 1681s-1 required Experian to report what OCS provided. But it held that the district court erred by ending the analysis there. Reporting the agency’s information did not relieve Experian of its duty to report accurately and completely.
The court applied the Sixth Circuit’s standard that a report is inaccurate if it is patently incorrect or materially misleading, including through omission. Taking the allegations as true, Experian’s omission of the court orders, and its failure to look further, produced a report that could be expected to have an adverse effect. The court treated the existence of the orders as a factual matter within a credit bureau’s competence, relying on the Seventh Circuit’s Chaitoff decision: bureaus can read and understand court documents, and they face liability when they ignore documents of unquestioned authenticity, even if those documents relate to a legal dispute.
On reinvestigation, the court said that Berry submitted three disputes and supporting court records, yet Experian kept repeating the same automated steps. That was enough to plead an unreasonable reinvestigation. The court also joined other circuits in holding that a § 1681i claim requires a showing of inaccuracy.
The court held, however, that the complaint supported only negligence, not willfulness. Experian’s reading of § 1681s-1 had found support in the district court, and it did take some steps. The court rejected Berry’s alternative argument that a state court is a “State agency” whose information Experian had to report.
Judge Readler concurred in part and dissented in part. He agreed that Experian need not delete the OCS information but would have held that Berry abandoned at oral argument any theory that Experian should have added the court orders to his report.
Our take
Berry is a sensible decision with broad implications beyond child support. The FCRA has several provisions that tell bureaus what they must or may report. None of them, in our view, turns off § 1681e(b) and § 1681i. A bureau that is required to report an agency’s data is still required to report it accurately and completely, and if it receives an authentic court order showing the data is incomplete, it has to do something with that order.
The opinion also adds to a growing body of appellate authority, including Chaitoff and the Eleventh Circuit’s Losch, holding that a bureau’s routine automated dispute process is not automatically reasonable. When the consumer has pinpointed the problem and supplied documents, the calculus changes. That point applies to bankruptcy discharges, satisfied judgments, dismissed evictions, and paid-off accounts as much as to support orders.
Two limits remain. The panel found no willfulness on these pleadings, which matters because negligence claims require proof of actual damages. And the remedy may be modest: the majority suggested that Experian could have satisfied its duties by including the court orders alongside the agency’s information, rather than deleting the support balance.
What it means if your report is wrong
If a court order, discharge, or other official record shows that what a furnisher reports is wrong or incomplete, send a copy with your dispute to each credit bureau. Keep the dispute letters, the results, and any lender denials or rate quotes. If the bureau simply re-verifies with the furnisher and ignores your document, Berry supports a claim that its reinvestigation was unreasonable. A free case review can assess how the ruling affects a claim, with no fee unless we win.
Sources
Primary
Commentary we reviewed
- Orrick InfoBytes — 6th Circuit reverses decision on plaintiff's FCRA claim
- Bloomberg Law — Experian can't shake suit claiming inaccurate credit report
Updated November 1, 2026. "Our take" is the firm's opinion. This page is general information, not legal advice, and later decisions may change the law.