“Objective-Verifiability” as a Threshold for §1681i Claims: A Commentary on Reyes v. Equifax (5th Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

In Reyes v. Equifax Information Services, L.L.C., the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit confronted a recurring tension in Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) litigation: whether a consumer may compel a consumer-reporting agency (CRA) to delete or modify information that is factually correct but whose legal validity is disputed. Mary Reyes claimed that Equifax violated 15 U.S.C. §1681i—the FCRA’s reinvestigation provision—by continuing to report a charged-off Citibank account after she alleged the underlying charges were fraudulent.

The court affirmed summary judgment for Equifax, definitively holding—for the first time in the Fifth Circuit—that:

Objective factual inaccuracy is a threshold element of every §1681i claim; and
Section 1681i does not require (or permit) CRAs to adjudicate the legal validity of the debt. A consumer may not mount a “collateral attack” on the debt’s enforceability against a CRA.

By aligning itself with a growing body of circuit authority, the Fifth Circuit injected clarity into FCRA jurisprudence in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, and established the doctrine of “objective verifiability” as a litmus test for future reinvestigation claims.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Mary Reyes discovered approximately $2,500 in allegedly fraudulent charges on her Citibank credit-card account. After Citibank refused to credit them, the account went delinquent, was charged off, and Equifax reported a balance of roughly $3,300 (principal, interest, and fees). Reyes, through counsel, sent multiple dispute letters to Equifax that referenced the old account number rather than the new one Citibank had issued. Equifax forwarded the disputes via the Automated Consumer Dispute Verification (ACDV) system; Citibank repeatedly verified the accuracy of the information reported. A home-improvement loan denial followed, and Reyes sued Equifax under §1681e(b) and §1681i. The district court granted Equifax’s motion for summary judgment, and Reyes appealed solely on the §1681i claim.

The Fifth Circuit (Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, joined by Chief Judge Elrod and Judge Clement) affirmed. Key holdings include:

Inaccuracy Requirement —A consumer must show that disputed information is inaccurate (patently incorrect or misleading) as a prerequisite to any §1681i claim.
Objective Verifiability Standard —Only inaccuracies that are “objectively and readily verifiable” are cognizable. Disputes turning on unresolved legal questions are not.
No Collateral Attack —CRAs are “neither qualified nor obligated” to resolve legal disputes about a debt’s enforceability; that task lies with the furnisher or a court/arbitrator.
Application to Facts —Because Citibank repeatedly verified the account, and Reyes produced no evidence that Equifax’s report was factually wrong or misleading, her claim failed as a matter of law.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The panel drew on both Fifth Circuit and nationwide authority:

Sepulvado v. CSC Credit Services, 158 F.3d 890 (5th Cir. 1998) – Defined “inaccurate” as information that is patently incorrect or materially misleading.
Pinner v. Schmidt, 805 F.2d 1258 (5th Cir. 1986) & Stevenson v. TRW, 987 F.2d 288 (5th Cir. 1993) – Earlier cases requiring deletion of information that a CRA could not verify factually; distinguished here because underlying disputes were legal, not factual.
Sister-Circuit Collateral Attack Line – DeAndrade (1st Cir. 2008), Carvalho (9th Cir. 2010), Wright (10th Cir. 2015), Chaitoff (7th Cir. 2023), Berry (6th Cir. 2024) – All refuse to impose on CRAs a duty to resolve legal validity.
Mader v. Experian, 56 F.4th 264 (2d Cir. 2023) – Introduced the “objective verifiability” concept adopted here.

By explicitly “joining” these decisions, the Fifth Circuit harmonized its jurisprudence with the national consensus, filling an analytical gap left by prior cases.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Textual Interpretation of §1681i – Although the statute does not explicitly say “inaccuracy is required,” the court inferred it from §1681i(a)(1)(A)’s command to determine “whether the disputed information is inaccurate.” The decision situates the requirement within the FCRA’s overarching purpose of preventing the transmission of inaccurate credit data.
Objective-Verifiability Threshold – Borrowing from Mader, the court held that an “inaccuracy” must be objectively provable. Where the consumer’s contention requires a legal conclusion (e.g., fraud, statute of limitations, discharge in bankruptcy), the information is neither “inaccurate” nor “unverifiable” in the statutory sense; it is merely unadjudicated.
Separation of Roles – The FCRA draws a functional line between CRAs (repositories and distributors) and furnishers/tribunals (determiners of liability). Requiring CRAs to decide fraud disputes would transform them into de facto courts, an outcome Congress did not intend.
Policy Considerations – Waiting for every debt to be litigated to finality before it can appear on a credit report would undermine marketplace reliance on credit data, contrary to §1681’s goal of balancing consumer protection with commercial utility.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

The decision’s ramifications are substantial:

Circuit Precedent – District courts within the Fifth Circuit now have binding authority requiring plaintiffs to plead and prove factual inaccuracy as the sine qua non of any §1681i claim.
Pleading Standards – Consumers must allege objective facts (e.g., wrong balance, wrong account holder, duplicate entries) rather than legal defenses (e.g., fraud, usury, bankruptcy discharge) to survive motions to dismiss.
Strategic Litigation Choices – Consumers disputing fraudulent or otherwise unenforceable debts must direct challenges to furnishers (15 U.S.C. §1681s-2(b)), arbitral forums, or courts—not CRAs—if they wish to remove the debt from credit files.
Compliance Programs – CRAs may rely on furnishers’ verification when reinvestigating legal disputes, provided they note consumer statements of dispute as required by §1681i(c).
Credit Marketplace Stability – The ruling preserves the integrity of credit reporting by preventing sudden deletions based on unresolved legal assertions, which could distort lenders’ risk assessments.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA): A private company (e.g., Equifax, TransUnion, Experian) that collects and sells consumer credit information.
§1681i – Reinvestigation Provision: Requires a CRA to reinvestigate disputed items within 30 days, correct or delete inaccuracies, and append the consumer’s statement if the dispute persists.
Charge-Off: An accounting term signaling that a creditor treats a debt as unlikely to be collected; the consumer still owes the money.
Automated Consumer Dispute Verification (ACDV): The electronic platform by which CRAs transmit consumer disputes to furnishers and receive verification responses.
Collateral Attack: An attempt to challenge a legal right (here, the debt) indirectly in a proceeding against a third party (the CRA) instead of directly against the creditor.
Objectively & Readily Verifiable: Facts that can be confirmed or disproved with concrete evidence (documents, numbers), as opposed to legal questions requiring interpretation.

5. Conclusion

Reyes v. Equifax cements two key principles in Fifth Circuit FCRA law: (1) a §1681i plaintiff must demonstrate an objectively verifiable factual inaccuracy, and (2) CRAs are not arbiters of complex legal disputes concerning debt validity. By importing the “objective verifiability” doctrine and aligning with sister circuits against collateral attacks, the court offers predictable rules for consumers, CRAs, and furnishers alike. The decision encourages consumers to litigate the merits of disputed debts directly with creditors or through statutory furnisher obligations, while preserving CRAs’ core function—accurate dissemination of credit data—without imposing quasi-judicial duties. Going forward, litigants and courts within the Fifth Circuit will employ Reyes as the touchstone for evaluating reinvestigation claims under the FCRA.