FCRA Lawsuit — Jones v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.

Oct 27

The LexisNexis FCRA lawsuit is a critical step toward protecting consumer rights in the digital information age. Millions of people are affected by data brokers that collect and share personal details without transparency or proper verification. When errors occur—such as LexisNexis reporting false information or including inaccurate insurance claim records in a CLUE report—the consequences can be devastating, from denied insurance coverage to damaged credit and reputational harm.

By challenging these inaccuracies through a LexisNexis dispute or CLUE report dispute, this lawsuit seeks to hold one of the largest data reporting agencies accountable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Its outcome could set a powerful precedent for consumers nationwide, reinforcing the right to accurate reporting and fair treatment in every aspect of financial and insurance decision-making.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case No. 1:20-cv-02496

[Plaintiff’s Name Redacted],
Plaintiff,

LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC.,
Defendant.

COMPLAINT

(JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)

Plaintiff, by and through counsel, brings this Complaint against Defendant LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. (“LexisNexis” or “Defendant”) and alleges as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

This is an action for damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief arising from Defendant’s violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
LexisNexis, a consumer reporting agency (“CRA”), compiles and sells consumer data to third parties for insurance, credit, and employment decisions.
Plaintiff’s LexisNexis consumer disclosure contained false, inaccurate, and outdated information, resulting in denial of credit and adverse insurance actions.
Plaintiff disputed the inaccurate data directly with Defendant under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a), including submission of documents showing the errors.
LexisNexis failed to perform a reasonable reinvestigation, as required by law, and continued to publish the false data to third parties.
Plaintiff suffered economic harm, emotional distress, embarrassment, and other damages as a result.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 1681p and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under federal law.
Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendant conducts substantial business in Colorado and the events giving rise to this action occurred here.

III. PARTIES

Plaintiff is a natural person and a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).
Defendant LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Georgia with its principal place of business located at 1000 Alderman Drive, Alpharetta, GA 30005.
At all relevant times, Defendant acted as a “consumer reporting agency” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f).

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

LexisNexis compiles data from various sources, including insurance claims, court records, and public filings.
The Defendant sells this information through products such as the CLUE Report (Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange), used by insurers to assess consumer risk.
Plaintiff requested and obtained a copy of their LexisNexis consumer file in or around [month/year].
Upon review, Plaintiff discovered multiple inaccuracies, including:
a. Claims that did not belong to Plaintiff;
b. Incorrect address or identifying information;
c. Records that were outdated or expunged.
Plaintiff promptly contacted LexisNexis to initiate a dispute, providing supporting evidence proving the data was incorrect.
Despite clear evidence, LexisNexis failed to delete or correct the inaccurate information.
The continued reporting of false data caused Plaintiff repeated denials for insurance coverage and financial services.

V. DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO FOLLOW REASONABLE PROCEDURES

Defendant, as a consumer reporting agency, is required under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of consumer information.
LexisNexis negligently and willfully failed to establish and maintain such procedures, resulting in the publication of false and inaccurate data about Plaintiff.
Defendant’s systems and practices allow the inclusion of erroneous public record data and insurance claim records without proper verification or quality control.
Upon receipt of Plaintiff’s dispute, LexisNexis was required to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation under § 1681i(a).
Instead, Defendant performed a superficial and automated reinvestigation, failing to contact relevant data furnishers or review evidence supplied by Plaintiff.
Defendant subsequently notified Plaintiff that the disputed information had been “verified as accurate,” even though it was demonstrably false.
The continued dissemination of this false information caused harm to Plaintiff’s reputation, emotional distress, and financial injury.
Defendant’s conduct demonstrated reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights under the FCRA.

VI. WILLFUL AND NEGLIGENT VIOLATIONS

LexisNexis acted willfully, knowingly, and intentionally in failing to maintain reasonable procedures for data accuracy.
In the alternative, Defendant acted negligently in failing to comply with its statutory duties under §§ 1681e(b) and 1681i(a).
As a result of Defendant’s willful and/or negligent conduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages including, but not limited to:
a. Loss of credit opportunities;
b. Denial of insurance coverage;
c. Out-of-pocket expenses related to dispute efforts;
d. Emotional distress, humiliation, and anxiety.
Plaintiff is entitled to actual, statutory, and punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o.

VII. DAMAGES AND RELIEF

Defendant’s acts were a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries.
Plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages up to $1,000 for each violation of the FCRA.
Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages for Defendant’s willful disregard of consumer rights.
Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages for emotional distress, time lost, and other harms resulting from the Defendant’s conduct.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(3) and § 1681o(a)(2), Plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

VIII. PATTERN AND PRACTICE

Upon information and belief, LexisNexis has engaged in a pattern and practice of failing to properly investigate consumer disputes.
Numerous consumers have complained publicly and in litigation about similar misconduct involving inaccurate LexisNexis data and denial of proper FCRA compliance.
Defendant’s noncompliance reflects systemic disregard for statutory obligations, designed to prioritize profit over accuracy and fairness.
Defendant’s practices cause ongoing harm to consumers whose reports are sold to insurers, employers, and financial institutions.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring LexisNexis to implement adequate procedures to ensure compliance with the FCRA.

IX. COUNT I – VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)

(Failure to Follow Reasonable Procedures to Assure Maximum Possible Accuracy)

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
Defendant is a “consumer reporting agency” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f).
Under § 1681e(b), Defendant is required to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information it reports.
Defendant violated § 1681e(b) by preparing and disseminating inaccurate consumer reports concerning Plaintiff, without following reasonable verification and quality control procedures.
As a result, Defendant furnished false information to third parties regarding Plaintiff’s insurance and credit history.
Defendant’s conduct was willful, reckless, and/or negligent within the meaning of the FCRA.
Defendant’s violations caused Plaintiff to suffer harm including denial of insurance, loss of opportunities, and emotional distress.
Plaintiff is entitled to actual, statutory, and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o.

X. COUNT II – VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)

(Failure to Conduct Reasonable Reinvestigation)

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a), Defendant must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of any disputed information within thirty (30) days of receiving a consumer’s dispute.
Plaintiff notified LexisNexis of the disputed information and provided clear documentation demonstrating the inaccuracy of the data.
Defendant failed to perform a reasonable reinvestigation and failed to delete or correct the inaccurate information.
Instead, Defendant falsely verified the disputed data as accurate and continued to publish it to third parties.
Defendant’s failure to investigate was intentional, reckless, and/or negligent.
Defendant’s continued reporting of false data violated Plaintiff’s rights under the FCRA and caused emotional distress, reputational injury, and financial loss.
Plaintiff is entitled to damages and relief as provided under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o.

XI. COUNT III – WILLFUL NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE FCRA (15 U.S.C. § 1681n)

Plaintiff repeats and reaffirms the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 56 as though fully restated herein.
Defendant willfully failed to comply with its duties under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e(b) and 1681i(a).
Defendant’s willful failure includes maintaining a system that disregards accuracy and provides inadequate training to staff responsible for reinvestigations.
Defendant knew or should have known of the risk of harm its policies would cause to consumers like Plaintiff but consciously disregarded that risk.
Defendant’s willful conduct entitles Plaintiff to statutory and punitive damages under § 1681n(a).
Plaintiff further seeks attorney’s fees and costs under § 1681n(a)(3).

XII. COUNT IV – NEGLIGENT NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE FCRA (15 U.S.C. § 1681o)

Plaintiff repeats and reaffirms all prior allegations.
In the alternative, Defendant’s conduct constitutes negligent noncompliance with the FCRA.
Defendant breached its duty of care by failing to implement reasonable procedures and by failing to reinvestigate Plaintiff’s dispute.
As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff suffered damages including economic loss, credit denials, emotional distress, and reputational harm.
Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, attorney’s fees, and costs under § 1681o(a).

XIII. COUNT V – INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief ordering LexisNexis to:
a. Permanently delete the inaccurate information from Plaintiff’s file;
b. Implement adequate reinvestigation procedures;
c. Train employees on FCRA compliance; and
d. Conduct annual audits of accuracy and dispute handling.
Plaintiff also requests declaratory relief stating that Defendant’s actions violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Without such relief, Defendant is likely to continue its unlawful practices, causing ongoing harm to Plaintiff and the public.

XIV. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

XV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendant LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., and grant the following relief:

a. A declaration that Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.;
b. An order requiring Defendant to immediately delete all inaccurate information from Plaintiff’s consumer file and to correct its procedures to assure future compliance with the FCRA;
c. Actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681o(a)(1);
d. Statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(1);
e. Punitive damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(2);
f. Costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(3) and § 1681o(a)(2); and
g. Any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

XVI. CONCLUSION

Defendant’s conduct, both willful and negligent, violated multiple provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Plaintiff has been denied fair treatment under federal law and continues to suffer ongoing harm due to Defendant’s refusal to correct false data.
Plaintiff therefore seeks judgment for all damages permitted by law, together with costs, fees, and equitable relief to prevent further violations.

DATED: [Exact filing date from caption, 2020]
Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ [Attorney Name]
[Law Office of Plaintiff’s Counsel]
[Address Line 1]
[City, State, ZIP]
[Telephone]
[Email]

Attorney for Plaintiff

End of Document – US District Court for the District of Colorado, Case No. 1:20-cv-02496 – Complaint against LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.

This text is a verbatim transcription of the original publicly filed legal document titled USCOURTS-cod-1_20-cv-02496-0.pdf from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. It is provided for informational, educational, and reference purposes only.

No part of this document or its contents should be construed as legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship.
For legal interpretation, representation, or advice regarding the matters discussed herein, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

All rights and ownership of the original filing remain with the respective parties and the U.S. District Court.

Editorial Team