Adegunju v. TransUnion LLC et al

Filing 22

OPINION and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 19 Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Judgement is GRANTED in favor of Experian on Count I. Signed by Judge Sarah D. Morrison on 6/5/24. (sem)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
TOLULOPE ADEGUNJU,
:

Plaintiff,
v.
TRANSUNION, LLC, et al.,

Case No. 2:23-cv-1712
Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A.
Jolson

:

Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Tolulope Adegunju, proceeding pro se, brings the instant action against
TransUnion, LLC; Equifax Information Services, LLC; and Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. for willfully violating his rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(“FCRA”). (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Experian moves for judgment on the pleadings (ECF
No. 19), and Mr. Adegunju has failed to respond. For the following reasons, the
Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
I.

FACTS1
TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian are the three major credit reporting

agencies that collect consumer credit and other data in order to provide credit
reports to third parties pursuant to the FCRA. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) When Mr.
Adegunju accessed his credit report generated by these credit reporting agencies in

The Court accepts Mr. Adegunju’s factual allegations as true for the
purposes of Experian’s motion. See Tucker v. Middleburg-Legacy Place, 539 F.3d
545, 549 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
1

January 2023, he discovered that his credit history had inaccurate and unverifiable
information, so he notified them about it. (Compl. ¶¶ 10-12.) But the credit
reporting agencies continued to provide inaccurate information regarding Mr.
Adegunju’s transactions and experiences with various companies in his credit
report. (Id.) None of the credit reporting agencies contacted Mr. Adegunju for
authorization before creating a credit report for him nor informed him of what
methods and processes they used to verify his information. (Id.) As a result of their
inaccurate credit reporting, Mr. Adegunju has suffered financial and reputational
harm. (Id.)
Mr. Adegunju’s alleges that TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian violated the
FCRA when they continued to “willfully” and “negligently” present inaccurate and
unverifiable information in his credit report. His sole claim arises under 15 U.S.C. §
1681b, which pertains to the permissible purposes for which a credit reporting
agency may furnish a credit report. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14.) First, Mr. Adegunju alleges that
the credit reporting agencies provided his credit report and personal information to
third parties without his written request in violation of § 1681b(a)(2). (Id.) He
alleges that none of the agencies contacted him before furnishing a credit report and
that he never provided them written or verbal authorization to do so. (Id.)
Second, Mr. Adegunju alleges that the three credit reporting agencies
violated § 1681b(c) when they issued his credit report with his social security
number without his prior authorization. His credit report also had private
information about him such as “information pertaining to [his] relationship or

2

experience [with] other entities” in violation of the FCRA. (Id. ¶¶ 2-4.) Mr.
Adegunju claims that he received denial letters due to the information obtained
from these credit reporting agencies. (Id.)
Attached to the complaint are over 300 pages of exhibits mostly consisting of
what appear to be copies of consumer disclosures that Mr. Adegunju obtained
directly from Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion for judgment on the pleadings made under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(c) is analyzed in the same manner as a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6). Tucker v. Middleburg-Legacy Place, 539 F.3d 545, 549 (6th Cir. 2008). To
overcome such a motion, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). The complaint need not contain detailed
factual allegations, but it must include more than labels, conclusions, and formulaic
recitations of the elements of a cause of action. Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471,
476 (6th Cir. 2007). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by [*4] mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A motion for judgment on the pleadings
should be granted when there is no material issue of fact, and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tucker, 539 F.3d at 549.
3

III.

ANALYSIS

Experian argues that it is entitled to judgment on the pleadings for two
reasons—(1) the FCRA does not require credit reporting agencies to obtain a
consumer’s “prior authorization” before furnishing a credit report under § 1681b(a),
and (2) Mr. Adegunju has failed to allege any violation of § 1681b(c).
A.

Mr. Adegunju has failed to allege that Experian lacked a
permissible purpose under § 1681b(a).

The FCRA restricts access to consumers’ credit reports by allowing a credit
reporting agency to provide a consumer’s credit report to third parties only for
certain “permissible purposes.” See generally 15 U.S.C. § 1681b. Section 1681b(a)
states that a credit reporting agency may permissibly furnish a credit report in six
circumstances: (1) at the request of a court or grand jury; (2) at the request of a
consumer in writing; (3) at the request of a person the reporting agency believes will
use the information in connection with a credit transaction, employment purposes,
insurance underwriting, license or other benefits; (4) in response to a request by a
child support enforcement agency; (5) to an agency which administers a State child
support collection plan; and (6) to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or
National Credit Union Administrator in preparation for an appointment of a
conservator, receiver, or liquidating agent for an insured institution. See id. §§
1681b(a)(1)-(6).
Mr. Adegunju asserts that Experian did not have a permissible purpose to
furnish his credit report based on the second element—Experian issued a credit
report without his express, written consent and “prior authorization.” But Mr.
4

Adegunju erroneously concludes that a credit reporting agency may provide a credit
report only with the written authorization of the consumer. He does not allege that
Experian’s furnishing of his credit report did not comply with the other five
permissible purposes for issuing a credit report, none of which require the written
consent of the consumer. Wisdom v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 1:22-CV-01091,
2024 WL 1720887, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 22, 2024) (internal quotation omitted).
Thus, Mr. Adegunju has failed to state claim for relief under § 1681b(a).
B.

Mr. Adegunju has alleged that Experian lacked a permissible
purpose under § 1681b(c).

FCRA permits a credit reporting agency to furnish a consumer’s credit report
to third parties in connection with credit and insurance transactions that are not
initiated by the consumer. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(c). In these types of transactions,
the credit reporting agency may provide a credit report only if the consumer gives
authorization or if “the transaction consists of a firm offer of credit or insurance.”
Id. § 1681b(c)(1)(A), (B)(i). If the consumer does not authorize the credit or
insurance transaction, FCRA provides that certain categories of information should
not be included on a consumer’s credit report: in those circumstances, the credit
report may contain only the name and address of the consumer, an identifier that is
not unique to the consumer, and other information pertaining to the consumer that
does not identify the relationship or experience of the consumer with respect to a
particular creditor or other entity. Id. §§ 1681b(c)(2)(A)-(C).
Mr. Adegunju alleges that Experian furnished credit reports to third parties
without his authorization, that it provided his social security (a unique identifier),
5

and it shared private information pertaining to his relationship or experience with
other entities. But, under § 1681b(c), a request by Mr. Adegunju is not the only
permissible reason to provide a credit report to a third party. That his credit report
had been provided to third parties without his permission does not necessarily give
rise to an FCRA violation under § 1681b(c). See Hopper v. Credit Assocs., No. 2:20cv-522, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44623, at *8 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 10, 2021) (Sargus, J.)
(“In allowing consumer agencies to release information for the purpose of a ‘firm
offer of credit,’ Congress ‘balance[d] any privacy concerns created by pre-screening
with the benefit of a firm offer of credit or insurance for all consumers identified
through the screening process.’”).
Experian argues that Mr. Adegunju merely parrots the language of §§
1681b(c)(2)(B) and (C) and fails to allege that it disclosed a unique identifier or
other information that identifies his relationship with respect to a particular
creditor. While Experian does not need Mr. Adegunju’s permission to provide his
credit report to third parties, Experian can only provide his social security number
and other private information to third parties when it does not have his permission.
Mr. Adegunju avers that Experian furnished his social security number and other
private information to third parties. Based on these allegations, Mr. Adegunju has
sufficiently alleged that Experian furnished his unique identifier and private
information without his authorization. He has sufficiently alleged that Experian
violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(c)(2).

6

IV.

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s Motion

for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Judgement is GRANTED in favor of Experian on Count I.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Sarah D. Morrison
SARAH D. MORRISON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7