- Case
- De Koning v. Trans Union, LLC
- Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- Citation
- No. 26-10538 (11th Cir. Oct. 19, 2026) (per curiam) (unpublished) (unpublished)
- Decided
- October 19, 2026
- Bottom line
- A reinsertion claim is far stronger when the reinserted information is wrong or the reinsertion caused a concrete loss, such as a denial of credit.
Background
When a consumer disputes an item, a credit bureau that cannot verify it must delete it. But the FCRA allows the bureau to put the item back, called reinsertion, if the furnisher later certifies that it is complete and accurate. Because reinsertion can surprise a consumer who believed a dispute was resolved, Congress added a safeguard: under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(B)(ii), the bureau must notify the consumer in writing within five business days after reinserting the information.
Johannes De Koning, representing himself, sued TransUnion in the Southern District of Florida, alleging that it reinserted information into his credit file without notifying him on time. He did not claim the reinserted information was inaccurate; he alleged only that it was inconsistent with what other bureaus reported. He claimed emotional distress, disruption of his business, reputational harm, and lost time. The district court entered judgment on the pleadings for TransUnion with prejudice, reasoning that an FCRA reinvestigation claim requires inaccurate reporting.
What the court held
The Eleventh Circuit, in a short unpublished per curiam opinion, did not reach the merits. It raised standing on its own and held De Koning lacked it.
Relying on its 2025 published decision in Nelson v. Experian Information Solutions, 144 F.4th 1350, the court explained that “a statutory violation is not itself an injury in fact.” De Koning alleged at most a failure to give timely notice of reinsertion. Without an allegation that the reinserted information was wrong, the late notice was an “otherwise harmless statutory violation.” The court also held, again following Nelson, that he “cannot manufacture standing by spending time and effort” to address that kind of violation.
Because a court without jurisdiction cannot rule on the merits, the court vacated the dismissal with prejudice and remanded for dismissal without prejudice.
Our take
This is an unpublished opinion in a self-represented case, and under Eleventh Circuit rules it is not binding precedent. We include it because it shows how far the post-TransUnion v. Ramirez standing doctrine now reaches into the FCRA’s procedural protections, and because reinsertion problems are common.
We think the reasoning is too quick in one respect. The reinsertion notice exists so the consumer can act: dispute again, add a statement, or prepare before applying for credit. A consumer who never gets the notice may lose the chance to address the item before a lender sees it. That harm is concrete when it happens. The opinion’s analysis treats the notice requirement as valuable only if the underlying data is wrong.
Still, the practical lesson is consistent with Nelson and with the Supreme Court’s Ramirez decision. In the Eleventh Circuit, a bare procedural claim, even one alleging distress and wasted time, is unlikely to survive. A consumer who can show the reinserted information was inaccurate, or that the reinserted item was shown to a lender and caused a denial or higher rate, stands on much firmer ground.
Note also what the court did not decide. It did not hold that reinsertion claims require inaccuracy on the merits, and the dismissal without prejudice leaves that question open. A plaintiff with standing might still argue that § 1681i(a)(5)(B) is violated by a late notice regardless of accuracy.
What it means if your report is wrong
If an item you successfully disputed reappears on your report, check whether you received a written reinsertion notice and when. Then focus on the item itself: Is it accurate? If not, dispute it again with documents. Keep records of any credit applications, denials, or higher rates after the reinsertion, because those show concrete harm. A free case review can assess how this ruling affects your claim, with no fee unless we win.
Sources
Primary
Commentary we reviewed
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.