Thank you to Alisa Givental for her post contribution!
Controlling Second Circuit Rule for Consumer Reporting Agencies: Recent Second Circuit decisions—Mader v. Experian and Sessa v. TransUnion—require that an alleged inaccuracy be “objectively and readily verifiable” for an FCRA claim to proceed against a CRA.
Background: After vacating an allegedly uninhabitable apartment, Aliyah Silver disputed inconsistent rent‑related amounts that her landlord and its collector, Top Line, said she owed. Top Line reported a delinquent debt to TransUnion; Silver disputed; TransUnion verified. The court had already dismissed Silver’s FCRA claim against TransUnion on the ground that she failed to allege any objectively and readily verifiable inaccuracy.
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: Top Line sought to dismiss on the same basis as Trans Union. Silver opposed, arguing that furnishers and CRAs are differently situated and broader investigatory duties are applicable to furnishers than to CRAs. The Court acknowledged that other circuits have suggested as much—e.g., the Ninth Circuit in Gross v. CitiMortgage and the Seventh Circuit in Denan v. Trans Union. But given the absence of controlling Second Circuit authority, the Court declined to hold furnishers to a different standard on the threshold question of accuracy, and dismissed Silver’s complaint against Top Line.
Why it matters. In the Second Circuit, Mader/Sessa anchor FCRA pleadings against CRAs to the “objectively and readily verifiable” standard. Silver shows that at least some district courts are inclined to hold furnishers to the same standard. Plaintiffs must therefore plead an inaccuracy that can be verified objectively at the outset; critiques of a furnisher’s investigation alone won’t save the claim.
ALIYAH SILVER, v. TOP LINE REPORTING INC., No. 25-CV-4375 (BMC), 2026 WL 221308 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2026).
Contributed by: Alisa Givental
