- Case
- Suluki v. Credit One Bank, N.A.
- Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- Citation
- 138 F.4th 709 (2d Cir. 2025) (No. 23-721)
- Decided
- May 28, 2025
- Bottom line
- In identity theft disputes, especially involving family members, what you send with your dispute may decide whether a later lawsuit can succeed.
Background
Khalilah Suluki alleged that her mother opened and used several credit card accounts in her name without permission, including one with Credit One Bank. She disputed the Credit One account directly with the bank and through Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union. Credit One investigated several times and concluded the account was hers.
Suluki sued under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), arguing that Credit One’s investigations were a “cookie-cutter” exercise that stopped after finding a couple of superficial links between her and the account. The CFPB and FTC filed an amicus brief supporting her, arguing among other things that a furnisher reporting disputed information as verified must have enough evidence to support that conclusion. The district court granted summary judgment to Credit One.
What the court held
The Second Circuit affirmed in a published opinion by Judge Chin. The panel agreed there was a genuine factual dispute about whether the account was in fact fraudulent, because Suluki and her mother gave conflicting statements. But the court held that this was not enough.
The panel explained that the FCRA “does not require furnishers to conduct perfect investigations,” only reasonable ones, and it does not guarantee a result favorable to the consumer. Even assuming the mother opened the account without permission, the court concluded that no reasonable investigation would have led Credit One to a different conclusion on the record before it.
On damages, the court held there was no triable issue of willfulness under Safeco Insurance Co. v. Burr. It reasoned that a single district court decision criticizing Credit One’s identifier-matching approach in a family-fraud case (Wood v. Credit One Bank, E.D. Va. 2017) was not the kind of authoritative guidance from a court of appeals or the FTC that could make the bank’s reading objectively unreasonable. On negligence, the court rejected the CFPB and FTC position that continued reporting of unverified information alone established actual damages, concluding that Credit One had acquired sufficient evidence to support its verification.
Our take
Suluki is a defense win, and we expect furnishers to cite it often. Its most consequential move is a causation requirement: a consumer must show not only that the investigation was unreasonable, but that a reasonable one would have changed the outcome. That framing puts a heavy burden on consumers in cases where the furnisher’s records are thin and the alleged fraudster is a relative with access to the victim’s personal information.
We think the court understated a real problem. Matching a name, date of birth, and Social Security number tells a furnisher very little when the suspect is a family member who knows all three. The panel’s answer is that the furnisher worked with the information it had, and that the consumer did not give it more. Whether one agrees, the opinion makes clear that the content of the dispute matters a great deal in the Second Circuit.
The willfulness ruling is also worth noting. Under Safeco, a defendant’s reading must be objectively unreasonable in light of guidance from appellate courts or the agency. The court’s refusal to treat a district court opinion as that kind of guidance makes willfulness harder to prove on novel investigation theories, which in turn limits statutory and punitive damages.
What it means if your report is wrong
If you are disputing an account opened by someone you know, give the furnisher and the bureaus as much as you can: a police report, an FTC identity theft report, the specific accounts at issue, and any evidence showing who used the account (addresses, devices, payment sources). In Suluki, the opinion recounts that the bank asked for a police report and that the consumer, after difficulty filing one, ultimately did not obtain it. Keep copies of everything you send and everything you receive.
A free case review can assess how this ruling affects a claim, and there is no fee unless we win.
Sources
Primary
Commentary we reviewed
- Commentary: Second Circuit explains reasonable investigation standard in identity theft case under FCRA (Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor)
- Background: FTC and CFPB amicus brief in Suluki (Consumer Finance Monitor, 2023)
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.