Lashonda Peeples v. National Data Research, Inc. and Background Information Group, LLC d/b/a Integrascan, et al.

Atlanta, Georgia, personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a Fair Credit Reporting Act violation theory.



In 2021, Lashonda Peeples applied to a pre-medical program at the

American International College of Arts and Sciences – Antigua

("AICASA”) for which prospective students had to submit a crimi-

nal background report. AICASA required that the background re-

ports be prepared by NDR, a consumer reporting agency. NDR,

upon request by an individual, generates background reports that

it transmits directly to the requesting individual for her use. Ms.

Peeples received a background report from NDR that she believed

was inaccurate because it disclosed a record of a criminal offense in

South Carolina that had since been expunged.



After Ms. Peeples challenged the representation of the of-

fense in her file as inaccurate, NDR updated the background report

to reflect that the offence had been expunged with a notation. Ms.

Peeples then contested the accuracy of the modified report because

South Carolina state law provides that an expunged record be-

comes "nonpublic” and can only be accessed by "those authorized

law or court officials who need to know” the information in the

record, and a criminal background report only includes those rec-

ords that are public because nonpublic records are confidential. See

S.C. Code § 22-5-910(D). NDR declined to update the background

report again, because in its view the report was accurate as to the

existence of a criminal offense and its subsequent expungement.

Ms. Peeples had, at this point, enrolled in the AICASA pre-

medical program for one semester and her continued participation

was contingent upon the submission of a complete background re-

port. She decided against submitting it, fearing that the expunge-

ment notation would bar her from enrolling in the program full-

time.



On July 13, 2022, Ms. Peeples brought a Fair Credit Report-

ing Act claim against NDR. She alleged that NDR's background

report violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e because NDR failed to "follow

reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy

of the information,” and 15 U.S.C. § 1681i because NDR failed to

"conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, correct the disputed

USCA11 Case: 24-109564 Opinion of the Court 24-10956

information, and maintain reasonable procedures to prevent the

reappearance of the inaccurate information.”



* * *



Ms. Nelson could not show concrete

harm, independent of an alleged statutory violation, or substantial

risk of harm flowing from the alleged statutory violation, to estab-

lish injury-in-fact for standing purposes. See id. at 1352. First, the

time and money Ms. Nelson spent trying to correct the error could

not establish injury-in-fact unless those efforts responded to, or at-

tempted to fix, an independent concrete harm. See id. at 1354–55

(reasoning that the expenditure of time and money to correct a

statutory violation does not establish standing unless it corrects an

error "that itself caused a concrete harm”) (emphasis removed).

Second, Ms. Nelson's theory of standing based on a threat of future

identity theft failed because it was too speculative—it depended on

the credit reporting agency sending incorrect information to a third

party, which would then act and send an offer to an incorrect loca-

tion, after which an intervening actor would use that information

to steal her identity. See id. at 1356–57. In order for a risk of future

harm to sufficiently establish injury, a plaintiff must show that "the

harm is actual or imminent.” Id. at 1357. The "chain-of-events”

Ms. Nelson asserted to establish standing were too attenuated and

speculative to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement. See id.

Motion for summary judgment granted.



Appeal dismissed. Vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice.