10.  The Big 3 consumer reporting agencies—Experian, Equifax, and Trans Union— regularly receive information from various sources around the country including banks, credit  unions, automobile dealers, student loan providers, public information vendors, the Social Security  Administration, and other furnishers.   11.  Experian, Equifax, and Trans Union collect their credit information from thousands  of sources and distribute that information to their customers/subscribers, such as Defendant.   12.  Although many of their customers are creditors, Experian, Equifax, and Trans  Union generate significant revenue by selling credit information to “resellers” of consumer reports,  like Defendant.    13.  After receiving the credit information (usually at a lower cost because of their  volume) from the credit bureaus, resellers then assemble and merge the credit information obtained  into a 3-bureau credit report, also known as a “tri-merge” or “merged infile” credit report, and sell  them to various mortgage lenders throughout the country.   14.  Tri-merge credit reports are unique to the mortgage industry because applying for  a mortgage loan is different in many ways from applying for other types of loans, such as a credit  card, where a creditor often obtains credit information from just one credit bureau.    15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)  Class Claim   16.  After receiving the raw credit data from the credit bureaus for a particular  consumer, Defendant assembles, merges, and normalizes the credit information, exactly as  received from Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union, into a Merged Infile credit report.   17.  Accordingly, Defendant is a “reseller” as defined at 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(u), which  is a “consumer reporting agency that—(1) assembles and merges information contained in the  database of another consumer reporting agency or multiple consumer reporting agencies  concerning any consumer for purposes of furnishing such information to any third party, to the  extent of such activities; and (2) does not maintain a database of the assemble or merged  information from which new consumer reports are produced.”  B.   Plaintiff’s experience and Defendant’s lack of procedures.    18.  Plaintiff is an active-duty servicemember in the United States Navy.    19.  On or around July 17, 2019, Plaintiff applied for a mortgage loan with Southern  Trust Mortgage in Virginia Beach.    20.  As part of this process, Southern Trust requested a copy of Plaintiff’s credit report  from Defendant.   21.  Defendant furnished a tri-merge credit report to Southern Trust Mortgage dated  July 17, 2019, which contained credit information about Defendant.    22.  The credit report erroneously indicated that Plaintiff was deceased.    23.  The credit report that Defendant furnished to Southern Trust Mortgage caused  Plaintiff to be denied for a mortgage based on Defendant’s reporting that Plaintiff was deceased.    25.  The Defendant’s erroneous reporting of Plaintiff as deceased was based on the  erroneous information it received from Equifax only. Thus, the “deceased” status was contradicted  within Defendants’ own report by the information it obtained from Trans Union and Experian.    26.  Defendant’s placement of the inaccurate information in Plaintiff’s consumer report  was caused by Defendant’s failure to implement and follow reasonable procedures to assure that  the information it was publishing regarding consumers was as accurate as possible.   27.  If Defendant had reasonable procedures (or any procedures whatsoever) it could  have easily determined that the information it published regarding Plaintiff was inaccurate and she  was alive.   28.  Most notably, this would include the most basic procedure of resolving conflicting  information within its own report. Here, the deceased information that Defendant reported  originated from Equifax, while information from Experian and Trans Union demonstrated that  Plaintiff was alive and active. In other words, Defendant knew that it was publishing inaccurate  information regarding Plaintiff because Plaintiff could not be both active and deceased. Defendant  should have had a procedure in place to resolve this conflict rather than knowingly publishing false  information.     29.  Upon information and belief, Defendant routinely sells credit reports for living  consumers with active credit histories, which include a notation indicating that the living consumer  is “deceased” and does not have a credit score.   31.  Upon information and belief, Defendant does not employ any procedures at all to  assure that a consumer with a “deceased” notation on his/her Merged Infile credit report is, in fact,  actually deceased before including the “deceased” notation on that consumer’s report and selling  that report for profit.   32.  Even in instances where other data on the face of the consumer’s Merged Infile  report indicates that he/she is not deceased, such as current and active credit history, Defendant  employs no procedures to assure that a consumer with a “deceased” notation on his/her report is,  in fact, actually deceased before including the “deceased” notation in that consumer’s file.   33.  In sum, Defendant also has no procedures to ensure that a consumer with a  “deceased” mark on his/her report is actually deceased before including the “deceased” notation  on that consumer’s report.   34.  As a result of Defendant’s misconduct, Plaintiff suffered actual damages, including  but not limited to: denial of her mortgage application, emotional distress, and damage to her  reputation.  C.   Defendant’s violations of the FCRA are willful.    35.  The Supreme Court has held that willfulness under the FCRA encompasses not  only a knowing violation but also a violation committed in reckless disregard of statutory  obligations. Safeco Insurance Company of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007).   36.  Recklessness is measured by an objective standard: conduct that creates an  “unjustifiably high risk of harm that is either known or so obvious that it should be known.” Id. at   38.  As the Federal Trade Commission has explained, reasonable procedures to assure  maximum possibly accuracy include “establish[ing] procedures to avoid reporting information  from its furnishers that appears implausible or inconsistent.” FTC, 40 Years of Experience with the  Fair Credit Reporting Act: An FTC Report with Summary of Interpretations 67 (July 2011),  available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/40-years-experience-fair- credit-reporting-act-ftc-staff-report-summary-interpretations/110720fcrareport.pdf.    39.  A credit reporting agency “must maintain procedures to avoid reporting  information with obvious logical inconsistencies, such as a credit account opened when the  consumer was known to be a minor” or, as here, where a consumer is reported as deceased even  though she is alive. See id. at 68.    40.  If Defendant had reasonable procedures in place that were consistent with the  FTC’s guidelines and the plain language of the FCRA, Defendant would not have reported the  inaccurate, derogatory information concerning Plaintiff.   42.  Upon information and belief, Defendant has been further notified of the inadequacy  of its procedures through disputes submitted by consumers and complaints from mortgage  companies.    43.  Despite these complaints and lawsuits, Defendant has continued to rely on its  inadequate procedures to the detriment of Plaintiff and class members.    44.  Plaintiff restates each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth  at length herein.   45.  Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf  of a class initially defined as follows:  All natural persons who were the subject: (1) of a consumer report furnished by the  Defendant to a third party within the five years preceding the filing date of this  Complaint; (2) where the Defendant’s consumer report contained a notation that  the consumer was deceased in at least one scoring model; and (3) where one or  more other scoring models did not also contain a deceased notation.  Plaintiff is a member of this class.    46.  Numerosity. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the class is so  numerous that joinder of the claims of all class members is impractical. The class members’ names  and addresses are identifiable through the Defendant’s documents and records, and the class  members may be notified of the pendency of this action by publication or mailed notice.   48.  Typicality. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of each putative class  member and all claims are based on the same facts and legal theories. Plaintiff, as every putative  class member, alleges a violation of the same FCRA provision, 15 U.S.C. §1681e(b). This claim  challenges the Defendant’s consumer reporting procedures and does not depend on any  individualized facts. For purposes of class certification, Plaintiff seeks only statutory and punitive  damages. Such damages are appropriate in circumstances like this one where injuries are  particularized and concrete, but difficult to quantify, rendering the recovery of class statutory  damages ideal and appropriate. In addition, Plaintiff is entitled to the relief under the same causes  of action as the other class members.   49.  Adequacy. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the class’s interests.  Plaintiff  has retained counsel experienced in handling actions involving unlawful practices against  consumers and class actions. Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel have any interests that might cause  them not to vigorously pursue this action. Plaintiff is aware of her responsibilities to the putative  class and has accepted such responsibilities.   52.  Defendant’s violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) was willful, rendering the Defendant  liable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. In the alternative, the Defendant was negligent, entitling the  Plaintiff to recover under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.1   53.  In addition, the Plaintiff and each class member suffered an actual injury because  of the Defendant’s violation, as alleged herein.   54.  Plaintiff and the putative class members are entitled to recover statutory damages,  punitive damages, costs, and attorney’s fees from the Defendant in an amount to be determined by  the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves for class certification and for judgment against the  Defendant for statutory damages, punitive damages,  and attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as any  other relief that the Court finds just and appropriate.  68.   A.   Defendant is a reseller of consumer reports.   