(for Amy Summers)   (for Charles Edward Steed)   (for Amy Summers)   12.  In July 2010, Steed reviewed his credit report and noticed that Equifax was  reporting various items that did not belong to him.  On or about July 2, 2010, Steed  notified Equifax that he disputed these items, including an inquiry from ClearPoint  Financial (which Equifax also identifies as “CCCS of VA”).  He indicated that the  inquiry did not belong to him.     13.  In response to his dispute, Equifax sent Steed a letter dated July 28, 2010.   The letter began: “Below are the results of your request for Equifax to reinvestigate  certain elements of your Equifax credit file.  Equifax contacted each source  4  directly and our investigation is now completed.  If you have any additional  questions or concerns, please contact the source of that information directly.”  Exhibit B, page 1.   14.  For the results to Steed’s dispute of the inquiry, Equifax stated: “We have  reviewed the inquiry information for CCCS of VA.  The results are: Inquiries are a  factual record of file access.  If you believe this was unauthorized, please contact  the creditor.  If you have additional questions about this item please contact: CCCS  of VA, 4660 S Laburnum Ave, Richmond, VA 23231-2424.” Exhibit B, page 2.   15.  Equifax’s statement that it had reinvestigated Steed’s dispute of the inquiry  and contacted the source of that information directly was not true.  Equifax had not  contacted CCCS of VA.  However, Steed did not know that Equifax had not  reinvestigated his dispute or contacted the source when he received the results in  2010.  Equifax’s false statement about reinvestigating his dispute and contacting  the source prevented Steed from discovering that Equifax had failed to  reinvestigate his dispute of the inquiry.     16.  Equifax continued to include the inquiry from CCCS of VA in Steed’s credit  file.  5  17.  Amy Summers is a victim of identity theft.  Someone used her identification  to open accounts for services from DirecTV and Dish Network.     18.  In March 2013, Summers reviewed her Equifax credit report and saw that  Equifax was reporting two inquiries from DirecTV and one inquiry from Dish  Network.  On or about March 13, 2013, Summers notified Equifax through its  online dispute system that the two DirecTV inquiries were fraudulent and that the  Dish Network inquiry was fraudulent.     19.  In response to her disputes, Equifax sent Summers a letter dated March 13,  2013.  For the results to her dispute of the inquiries by DirecTV, Equifax stated:  “We have reviewed the inquiry information for Directv.  The results are: Inquiries  are a factual record of file access.  If you believe this was unauthorized, please  contact the creditor.  If you have additional questions about this item please  contact: Directv, 2230 E Imperial Hwy, Mail Station LA1/N368, EL Segundo, CA  90245-3504.” Exhibit A, page 1.   20.  For the results to her dispute of the inquiry by Dish Network, Equifax stated:  “We have reviewed the inquiry information for Dish Network.  The results are:  Inquiries are a factual record of file access.  If you believe this was unauthorized,  please contact the creditor.  If you have additional questions about this item please  6  contact: Dish Network, 9601 S Meridian Blvd, Bldg 1 FLR 3 Cmo, Englewood,  CO 80112-5905.” Exhibit A, page 1.   21.  Equifax continued to report the Dish Network and DirecTV inquiries on  Summers’ credit file.   22.  Equifax attached a copy of Summers’ credit file to the letter responding to  her disputes.  The Equifax letter began: “Enclosed is a copy of your Equifax credit  file.  Please review it for any unauthorized accounts or inquiries.  If unauthorized  information is reporting on your Equifax credit file, you may start an investigation  immediately on-line at www.investigate.equifax.com.  Using the Internet to initiate  an on-line investigation request will expedite the resolution of your concerns.  You  may also start an investigation by completing and returning the enclosed Research  Request Form or by calling the toll free telephone number on the credit file.”  Exhibit A, page 1.   23.  Summers had just done exactly as Equifax advised her to do.  She had  reviewed her Equifax credit file, seen the unauthorized inquiries and made an  online dispute to Equifax in which she informed Equifax that the inquiries were  fraudulent.  Yet Equifax had sent her results indicating it would not remove those  inquiries from her credit file.  Now Equifax was advising her to go through the  7  entire dispute process again although doing so would not result in the deletion of  the fraudulent inquiries.  24.  The FCRA has strict requirements that Equifax must follow in regard to  information disputed by a consumer.  If a consumer notifies Equifax that the  consumer disputes “the completeness or accuracy of any item of information  contained in a consumer’s file” Equifax 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  reinvestigation, Equifax must “provide notification of the dispute to any person  who provided any item of information in dispute,” and the 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).    25.  Part of the information that Equifax includes on its consumer reports is a list  of persons who obtained a consumer report on that consumer within the previous  two years.  Equifax will report the name and address of the person and the date  they obtained the consumer report.  Each name, address and date is known as an  “inquiry.”  Inquiry information is included on a credit report because it is part of a  8  consumer’s credit history.  The inquiry information identifies the persons with  whom the consumer has sought credit and shows how often the consumer has  sought credit.     26.  Inquiries have a negative impact on a consumer’s credit score.  The more  inquiries, the lower the score.  That is because the scoring programs view each  inquiry as an application for credit by that consumer, and a consumer who makes  multiple applications is considered a greater risk than a consumer who does not.   27.  Inquiry information is often inaccurate.  Sometimes an inquiry will be on a  consumer’s credit report although the consumer did not seek credit. A common  example is when a consumer is a victim of identity theft, such as Summers, and the  identity thief has sought credit using the consumer’s identification.  Another  example is when the consumer reporting agency provides the consumer’s report to  a creditor who requested a report on a different person (perhaps with a similar  name), such as happened with Steed.     28.  Listing inquiries on a consumer’s report that do not belong to that consumer  misrepresents that consumer’s credit history regarding the number of times, and  with whom, the consumer has sought credit or services.  It also unfairly lowers the  consumers credit score because it was not that consumer that was seeking the  credit.  9   29.  If a consumer disputes an inquiry, Equifax must reinvestigate to determine  whether the inquiry actually pertains to that consumer and should be part of that  consumer’s credit history.  As part of the reinvestigation, Equifax must notify the  source of the inquiry about the consumer’s dispute and provide the source with all  the relevant information provided by the consumer.  Alternatively, Equifax can  delete the inquiry.     30.  Equifax does none of these things.  It does not reinvestigate the disputed  inquiry.  It does not notify the source about the consumer’s dispute.  It does not  provide the source with all the relevant information about the dispute.  And it does  not delete the inquiry.     31.  Contacting the source is critical in doing a reasonable reinvestigation.  That  is why Congress required Equifax to contact the source.  In cases of identity theft,  the source may be aware of the identity theft either through notice from the  consumer who is the victim, or through the source’s own identity theft detection  procedures.  In situations where the wrong consumer’s report was provided to the  source, the source may know it got a report on a consumer who is not the person  they were dealing with; or it could check its records to determine if that occurred.   Equifax can also reinvestigate such cases by comparing the identifying information  for the consumer whose report was provided to see if there are differences with the  10 identifying information of the consumer provided by the person who requested the  credit report.     32.  Equifax’s failure to reinvestigate the dispute, contact the source of the  disputed information, or delete the disputed information violates one of the most  fundamental protections afforded to consumers under the FCRA.  A consumer has  a right to dispute the accuracy or completeness of “any item of information  contained in a consumer’s file” and Equifax must “conduct a reasonable  reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate.”  15  U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).  Equifax’s practice takes away this fundamental right of a  consumer to dispute and have the disputed information reinvestigated.  Moreover,  it undermines the accuracy of the information on consumer reports.  Consumers  often notice inaccurate information on a consumer report that the consumer  reporting agency is not aware of.  Through the dispute and reinvestigation  procedure mandated by the FCRA, inaccurate information is removed from credit  reports.  The dispute procedure is virtually the only way that a consumer can  correct errors on a consumer report.   33.  Equifax recognizes its obligation to reinvestigate disputed information and  to contact the source as part of that reinvestigation.  This is evident in the letter  sent to Steed in which Equifax stated that it had conducted a reinvestigation and  11 contacted the source of the disputed information directly.  And it is evident in the  letter sent to Summers stating that she should review her credit file and make an  on-line dispute to Equifax regarding any unauthorized inquiries.  Nevertheless,  Equifax deliberately fails to comply with these legal requirements that it  acknowledges it has.  In its form response, Equifax actually tells the consumer to  contact the source of the inquiry if the consumer believes it is unauthorized.  The  FCRA requires that Equifax, not the consumer, contact the source.    34.  Equifax’s failure to reinvestigate disputed inquiry information is a result of  its standard policies and practices, and was taken in reckless disregard of a  consumer’s rights under the FCRA.     35.  Steed and Summers bring these class actions pursuant to Rule 23(a) and  (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, based on Equifax’s failure to  comply with 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1) and (2).  Steed and Summers bring class  action claims that are identical except for the time period covered by each claim.   Summers brings claims that arose within the previous two years (“two year class”),  on behalf of two classes of consumers.  Steed brings claims that arose more than  two years ago but within five years (“five year class”), on behalf of two classes of  consumers.    12  36.  Summers brings a class action on behalf of the following class:  All persons residing in the United States and its  Territories who notified Equifax of a dispute of an  inquiry and who were sent a letter by Equifax with  results similar in form to the results sent to Summers in  the attached Exhibit A, from two years prior to the filing  of this action and through the time of judgment.   37.  Summers brings a second class action on behalf of the following class:  All persons residing in the United States and its  Territories who notified Equifax of a dispute of an  inquiry regarding which Equifax did not contact the  source of the inquiry or delete the inquiry, from two  years prior to the filing of this action and through the  time of judgment.   38.  Steed brings a class action on behalf of the following class:  All persons residing in the United States and its  Territories who notified Equifax of a dispute of an  inquiry and who were sent a letter by Equifax with  results similar in form to the results sent to Steed in the  attached Exhibit B, page 2, within five years of the filing  of this action but not within two years of the filing of this  action.   39.  Steed brings a second class action on behalf of the following class:  All persons residing in the United States and its  Territories who notified Equifax of a dispute of an  inquiry regarding which Equifax did not contact the  source of the inquiry or delete the inquiry, within five  years of the filing of this action but not within two years  of the filing of this action.  13  40.  Each of these classes is so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable.  Although the precise number of Class members is known only to  Equifax, Equifax has testified that it receives approximately 10,000 disputes a day.   That amounts to millions of disputes each year.  Accordingly, Plaintiff estimates  that each class has thousands of members.   41.  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.   42.  Both the Steed and Summers’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class,  which all arise from the same operative facts and are based on the same legal  theory: a dispute to Equifax regarding an inquiry, which Equifax did not  reinvestigate or delete as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1) and (2).  Both Steed  and Summers received results of their disputes from Equifax with standard form  language.  Steed’s claim is typical for the five year class because he made his  dispute within five years but not within two years.  Summers’ claim is typical for  the two year class because she made her dispute within two years.  14  43.  Both Steed and Summers will fairly and adequately protect the interests of  their respective classes.  Both Steed and Summers are committed to vigorously  litigating this matter and have retained counsel experienced in handling class  actions and claims under the FCRA.  Neither Steed or Summers, or their counsel  have any interests that might cause them not to vigorously pursue these claims.   44.  These actions should be maintained as class actions 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. Members of the Class 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 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.  15  45.  These actions should be maintained as class actions 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 other members not  parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect  their interests.   46.  Summers realleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs.   47.  Equifax received notice from Summers that she disputed the accuracy of  inquiries on her Equifax credit report.   48.  Equifax willfully failed to comply with the requirements of the FCRA, 15  U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1) and (2) by failing to (a) reinvestigate the disputed inquiry,  notify the source of the inquiry about the dispute, and provide the source with all  relevant information Summers provided to Equifax; or (b) delete the inquiry.   49.  Summers brings this claim on behalf of the following class:  All persons residing in the United States and its  Territories who notified Equifax of a dispute of an  16 inquiry and who were sent a letter by Equifax with  results similar in form to the results sent to Summers in  the attached Exhibit A, from two years prior to the filing  of this action and through the time of judgment.   50.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n, Equifax is liable to Summers and all Class  members for its failure to comply with FCRA, § 1681i(a)(1) and (2), in an amount  equal to the sum of (1) damages of not less that $100 and not more than $1,000 per  violation, (2) punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, (3)  attorney fees, and (4) costs.   51.  Summers realleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs.   52.  Equifax received notice from Summers that she disputed the accuracy of  inquiries on her Equifax credit report.   53.  Equifax willfully failed to comply with the requirements of the FCRA, 15  U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1) and (2) by failing to (a) reinvestigate the disputed inquiry,  notify the source of the inquiry about the dispute, and provide the source with all  relevant information Summers provided to Equifax; or (b) delete the inquiry.   54.  Summers brings this claim on behalf of the following class:  All persons residing in the United States and its  Territories who notified Equifax of a dispute of an  inquiry regarding which Equifax did not contact the  17 source of the inquiry or delete the inquiry, from two  years prior to the filing of this action and through the  time of judgment.   55.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n, Equifax is liable to Summers and all Class  members for its failure to comply with FCRA, § 1681i(a)(1) and (2), in an amount  equal to the sum of (1) damages of not less that $100 and not more than $1,000 per  violation, (2) punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, (3)  attorney fees, and (4) costs.   56.  Steed realleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs.   57.  Equifax received notice from Steed that he disputed the accuracy of an  inquiry on his Equifax credit report.   58.  Equifax willfully failed to comply with the requirements of the FCRA, 15  U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1) and (2) by failing to (a) reinvestigate the disputed inquiry,  notify the source of the inquiry about the dispute, and provide the source with all  relevant information Steed provided to Equifax; or (b) delete the inquiry.   59.  Steed brings this claim on behalf of the following class:  All persons residing in the United States and its  Territories who notified Equifax of a dispute of an  inquiry and who were sent a letter by Equifax with  results similar in form to the results sent to Steed in the  18 attached Exhibit B, page 2, within five years of the filing  of this action but not within two years of the filing of this  action.   60.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n, Equifax is liable to Steed and all Class  members for its failure to comply with FCRA, § 1681i(a)(1) and (2), in an amount  equal to the sum of (1) damages of not less that $100 and not more than $1,000 per  violation, (2) punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, (3)  attorney fees, and (4) costs.  