(New York Fair Credit Reporting Act)   48.  When a consumer notifies a debt collector that the consumer disputes “the completeness  or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer’s file” the debt collector  must “conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information  is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item  from the file” within 30 days of receiving the consumer’s dispute. 15 U.S.C. §  1681i(a)(1)(A). As part of the investigation, the debt collector must “provide notification  of the dispute to any person who provided any item of information in dispute,” and the  seen by a jury as merely basic automated checks that catch missing data fields on submitted forms, which do not go to the heart  of whether a source of information is trustworthy. For example, when a consumer files a complaint contesting the accuracy of an  item on his or her credit report, the sole action taken by Equifax is to contact the source of the information to verify if it is accurate.  If the source says that it is, the inquiry ends . . . This does virtually nothing to determine the actual credibility of the source— which is what plaintiff asserts is lacking—or so a jury could reasonably conclude. While defendant does have some procedures  that include a manual review of some disputes, a jury could reasonably find that almost none of the procedures include a review  of the integrity of the information source itself. "), Sharf v. TransUnion, L.L.C., 2015 WL 6387501 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 22, 2015)  (student loan servicer willfully violated FCRA by failing to conduct any investigation, deferring entirely to lender to determine  accuracy), Saenz v. Trans Union, L.L.C., 2007 WL 2401745, at *7 (D. Or. Aug. 15, 2007) (when CRA is on notice that information  is suspect, “it is not reasonable for the [CRA] simply to verify the creditor’s position without additional investigation”) White v.  Trans Union, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (rejecting argument that confirmation of the accuracy of information from  its original source is a reasonable inquiry as a matter of law)  -10-  notice must “include all relevant information regarding the dispute that the agency has  received from the consumer….” 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(2)(A).    49.  If a consumer disputes an account that appears on his or her credit, the debt collector must  investigate to determine whether the account pertains to that consumer and should be part  of that consumer’s credit history. As part of the investigation, the debt collector must  notify the source of the disputed account about the consumer’s dispute and provide the  source with all the relevant information provided by the consumer. Alternatively, the debt  collector or the credit reporting agency can delete the derogatory information.    50.  Defendants Equifax, Bank of America and GM Financial have long been aware of their  obligations to properly investigate consumer disputes. It had the benefit of plain,  unambiguous statutory language requiring a reasonable investigation of “the completeness  or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer’s file” that is disputed by  that consumer. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added).    51.  The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a consumer reporting agency like  Defendant Equifax, violates section 1681i(a)(1) if it fails to do a reasonable  reinvestigation when a consumer disputes “information contained in his file.” Collins v.  Experian Info. Sol’s, Inc., 775, F.3d 1330, 1335 (11th Cir. 2015) (“[a] file is simply the  information retained by the consumer reporting agency.”).    52.  Other courts of appeals have for many years also instructed CRAs to reinvestigate any  item that it reports and that a consumer disputes, regardless of the context. See Cortez v.  Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688, 711-13 (3d Cir. 2010) (OFAC terrorist alerts that CRA  keeps off site with another company but placed on its credit reports are in the consumer  file and must be reinvestigated); Morris v. Equifax Info. Serv’s, LLC, 457 F.3d 460, 466- -11-  68 (5th Cir. 2006) (Equifax must reinvestigate store charge account that is on file kept by  one of Equifax’s affiliates but which can be sold by Equifax in its credit reports); Pinner  v. Schmidt, 805 F.2d 1258 (5th Cir. 1986); Bryant v. TRW, Inc., 689 F.2d 72 (6th Cir.  1982); Dennis v. BEH-1, LLC, 520 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2008); Steed v. Equifax Info.  Serv’s, LLC, No. 1:14-cv-0437-SCJ, 2016 WL 7888039, at *4 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 31, 2016).   53.  Equifax Information Services, LLC’s failure to investigate disputed account information  is a result of its standard policies and practices adopted in reckless disregard of consumers’  rights under the FCRA.    54.  Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of  Civil Procedure, based on Equifax Information Services, LLC’s failure to comply with 15  U.S.C. §§ 1681i(a)(1) and 1681i(a)(2).    55.  This cause of action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the members of a class.   56.  The class consists of all persons whom Defendants’ records reflect resided in the State of  New York, who notified Equifax Information Services, LLC and / or Bank of America  and GM Financialial of a dispute of an account appearing in their Equifax credit files and  to whom the Equifax failed to include the statement of dispute with later copies of the  Plaintiff's consumer report and reported the debt as “Charge-off” account, during the  period beginning two years prior to the filing of this action and through the time of  judgment.   57.  The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Although the  precise number of class members is known only to the Equifax, Equifax has represented  that it receives approximately 10,000 disputes a day, amounting to millions of disputes  each year. Accordingly, Plaintiff estimates that each class has thousands of members.   -12-   58.  There are questions of law and fact common to the classes that predominate over any  questions affecting only individual class members. The principal questions are whether  Equifax violated the FCRA by failing to reinvestigate and contact the source of the  disputed inquiry, or delete it; and whether the violations were willful.    59.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the classes, which all arise from the same  operative facts and are based on the same legal theory: a dispute to Equifax, one which  Equifax did not investigate or delete as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1) and (2).  Plaintiff received results of her disputes from Equifax with standard form language.  Plaintiff’s claim is typical of the two-year class because she made her dispute within two  years.     60.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Plaintiff is committed  to vigorously litigating this matter and have retained counsel experienced in handling class  actions and claims under the FCRA. Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel has any interests  that might cause them not to vigorously pursue these claims.    61.  This action should be maintained as a class action because questions of law and fact  common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual class  members, and because a class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy. Equifax’s conduct described in this Complaint stems  from standard policies and practices, resulting in common violations of the FCRA. Class  members do not have an interest in pursuing separate actions against Equifax, as the  amount of each class member’s individual claim is small compared to the expense and  burden of individual prosecution. Class certification also will obviate the need for unduly  duplicative litigation that might result in inconsistent judgments concerning Equifax’s  -13-  practices.  Moreover, management of this action as a class action will not present any  likely difficulties. In the interests of justice and judicial efficiency, it would be desirable  to concentrate the litigation of all class members’ claims in a single forum.    62.  This action should be maintained as a class action because the prosecution of separate  actions by individual members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying  adjudications with respect to individual members which would establish incompatible  standards of conduct for the party opposing the class, as well as a risk of adjudications  with respect to individual members which would as a practical matter be dispositive of  the interests of class members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or  impede their ability to protect their rights.   63.  At all times mentioned in this Complaint, Equifax was a "consumer reporting agency," as  referred to in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(e).   64.  At all times mentioned in this Complaint, Defendants Bank of America and GM Financial  were Furnishers of information as referred to in 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 of the FCRA.   65.  At all times mentioned in this Complaint, Defendants Bank of America and GM Financial  were federally registered trade-marks representing the furnisher for disputed accounts  which are the subject of this action.   66.  Defendants Bank of America and GM Financial are reporting inaccurate credit  information concerning the Plaintiff to one or more credit bureaus as defined by 15 U.S.C.  § 1681a of the FCRA.   67.  Prior to the commencement of this action, Plaintiff disputed certain information about  -14-  Bank of America and GM Financial accounts on Plaintiff's Equifax consumer credit  report.   68.  Equifax Information Services, LLC subsequently notified the Plaintiff that it would  investigate the said dispute.   69.  Equifax Information Services, LLC’s investigation did not resolve the dispute and  Plaintiff subsequently filed a statement of dispute.   70.  The disputed account appeared on Plaintiff’s Equifax consumer report and in her file  maintained by Equifax, yet did not include the said statement of dispute.   71.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held, that the FCRA requires  furnishers to conduct detailed examinations of the documents underlying customer  transactions before responding to inquiries about a customer’s debt, instead of relying on  computer databases that provide convenient, but potentially incomplete or inaccurate  customer account information. See Johnson v, MBNA America Bank, No. 03123S  (February 11, 2004).   72.  Defendant’ investigation process did not live up to the standards of Johnson v, MBNA  America Bank, No. 03123S (February 11, 2004).   73.  Defendants’ investigation process did not live up to the standards of the Federal Trade  Commission in the matter of U.S. v. Performance Capital Mgmt. (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Aug.  24, 2000).   74.  Defendants violated the duty under 15 U.S.C. 1681i by verifying the above referenced  account without obtaining any documentation in support of their contention that  Defendants were legally responsible for the account.  -15-  85.  Plaintiff re-states, re-alleges, and incorporates herein by reference, the previous  paragraphs as if set forth fully in this cause of action.   86.  Defendants Equifax, Bank of America and GM Financial failed to delete information  found to be inaccurate, reinserted the information without following the NY FCRA, or  failed to properly investigate Plaintiff's disputes.   87.  Defendants Equifax, Bank of America and GM Financial failed to promptly re-investigate  and record the current status of the disputed information and failed to promptly notify the  consumer of the result of their investigation, their decision on the status of the information,  and his rights pursuant to this section in violation of NY FCRA, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §  380-f(a).   88.  Defendants Equifax, Bank of America and GM Financial failed to clearly note in all  subsequent consumer reports that the account in question is disputed by the consumer in  violation of NY FCRA, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380-f(c)(3).   Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681i et. seq.   Failure to Conduct Reasonable Investigation and Maintain Reasonable Accuracy  