Verizon Customer Can Blame Himself for Flawed Credit History: TransUnion
TransUnion denies it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failing to delete inaccurate information from plaintiff Israel Mertz’s credit file after receiving notice of the inaccuracies in his Verizon account (see 2212300022), said its answer Monday (docket 7:22-cv-10938) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in White Plains.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The consumer reporting agency pins any blame for flaws in Mertz’s credit history on the plaintiff himself, plus its co-defendants, said its answer. Mertz’s Dec. 28 complaint named Equifax, TransUnion and Verizon as co-defendants, and TransUnion was the first to respond.
Mertz alleges he had a Verizon account set up on autopay when the company was unable to process his payment in October 2021. He provided a new form of payment to Verizon two months later, but Verizon failed to process it and sent his account out for collections instead, his complaint said.
Though Mertz asserts he ultimately satisfied the outstanding debt with Verizon, the company began reporting a collections account on his credit report, even though any late payments on his account were due to Verizon’s failure to process his autopay. Mertz alleges the unwarranted blemishes in his file caused him to be denied new lines of credit from a mortgage broker.
But Mertz failed to state a claim against TransUnion upon which relief may be granted, said the agency’s answer. It stands by its reports about Mertz as being “true or substantially true,” it said. TransUnion has at all times “followed reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of its credit reports” concerning Mertz, it said. TransUnion, at all relevant times, “acted within the absolute and qualified privileges afforded it under the FCRA,” the U.S. constitution, applicable state constitutions and the common law, it said.
Mertz “failed to take reasonable steps” to mitigate his damages, and his damages are the result of “acts or omissions” that he committed, said TransUnion. His damages also are the result of acts or omissions “committed by the other parties” over which TransUnion “has no responsibility or control,” it said.
Any claim for exemplary or punitive damages that Mertz asserts violates TransUnion’s due process and excessive fines rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and 14th amendments, plus the “analogous provisions” of applicable state constitutions, said TransUnion. It denies Mertz is entitled to judgment “or to any of the relief sought,” it said. It asks that judgment be entered in its favor, and it be awarded court costs for defending the action.